SiBJbi^ 


**', 


<J 


C:>-^^ 


Wv«    y»3     J^ 


■ili:TiESHH-a 


jb'"     ir 


-V      >-       4r      ,^      >f 


^r      -♦ 


/7 


t  *t  IHearonf^i  ^^^— 


5/5^^.. 


PRINCETON,  N.  J. 


'""S 


Section    .  rA  s-/  I  ^.X 
Number .\/.%...^' 


-*■         -^  ^ 


^         ^        A 


<         -V 


A'  >r  Jf 


^         .^  ^         -^ 


.w  <r  -« 


»r      ^ 


r        ><        M        -.<        ^ 
Jf       ^      ^       H(^       jf        x- 


.»#       *f       ^       •?" 


J£*        ir'         ■♦ 


^        Sit         jt  _Jt  >■ 

V        j«r  *■  ^-        ^        ,jr 

-<  <  ,«        -^       jf 

^  ^-  If       >ir 

^       -V  <  JK- 


*-       jT 


V  *r 


J*       «r      -*" 


•f      ^      >r 


jr       V       >-      V-       iT       j«r 


COMMENTARY 


ON    THE 


EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS. 


BY 

ALBERT  N.  ARNOLD,  D.  D., 

AND 

REV.  D.  B.  FORD. 


PHILADELPHIA : 

AMERICAN   BAPTIST   PUBLICATION   SOCIETY, 

1420  Chestnut  Street. 


Entered,  aceording  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1889,  by  the 

AMERICAN     BAPTIST   PUBLICATION    SOCIETY, 

in  the  Office  or  the  Librarian  of  Congress,  at  Washington. 


PREFACE. 


AViiEN  Dr.  Arnold's  manuscript  exposition  of  Romans — which  by  reason  of  ill  health 
he  eould  not  amplify  to  the  extent  desired — was  placed  in  my  hands  by  the  general  editor, 
with  the  request  that  I  would  duplicate  its  pages,  I  undertook  the  task  with  very  great 
hesitancy,  j'et  with  this  encouraging  thought  that,  however  unimjmrtant  might  be  my 
contributions,  I  could  not,  with  the  excellent  work  of  my  now  lamented  friend  included, 
make  a  really  poor  commentary.  In  endeavoring  to  fill  out  and  complete  a  work  so  well 
elaborated,  I  have  not  been  specially  ambitious  to  display  original  authorship,  but  have 
frequently  quoted  from  some  of  the  ablest  commentators  and  other  writers,  and  I  trust 
that  not  a  few  of  my  readers  will  unite  with  me  in  thanking  the  Giver  of  every  good  gift 
^that  other  men,  ii  their  studies  and  writings,  have  labored  on  this  the  profoundest  treat- 
ise of  inspiration,  and  that  we  have  entered  into  their  labor.  The  additions,  whether 
original  or  selected,  which  I  have  made  to  Dr.  Arnold's  commentary,  are  either  enclosed 
in  square  brackets  in  the  body  of  the  text,  or  else  are  inserted  as  foot  notes,  with  the 
initials  of  my  name  attached.  And  now,  having  furnished  my  moiety  of  the  work,  I  can 
only  commend  our  united  labor  to  the  God  of  all  power  and  grace,  that  he  may  make  it  the 
means  of  promoting  his  truth  and  glory,  of  establishing  believers  in  the  faith  of  the 
gospel,  and  even  of  winning  some  to  embrace  "the  righteousness  of  God  which  is 
through  faith  of  Jesus  Christ. ' ' 

DAVID  B.   FORD. 

Hanover,  Mass. 


INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  EPISTLE  OF  PAUL  THE 
APOSTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS. 


I.    ORIGIN  OF  THE  CHURCH  AT  ROME. 

We  have  no  certain  means  of  knowing  at  what  precise  time  Christianity  first  gained  a 
footing  at  Rome.  It  would  seem,  however,  to  have  been  many  years  before  the  date  of 
the  apostle's  letter  to  the  disciples  there.  They  were  then  a  numerous  body  (1  :  7),  too 
numerous,  apparently,  to  assemble  conveniently  or  safely  in  one  place,  and  therefore  dis- 
tributed into  several  companies.  (16  :  5,  14,  15.)  Some  of  them  had  long  been  disciples  of 
Christ  (16:  3,  4  compared  with  Acts  18  :  2  ;  16:  5,  6,  7,  12),  their  faith  was  already 
spoken  of  throughout  the  whole  world  (1  :  8 ;  16  :  19),  and  Paul  had  for  many  years 
been  intending  to  visit  them.  (1  :  \',i ;  15  :  23.)  All  these  indications  point  to  a  numerous 
church,  of  no  recent  origin.  [Thus  a  Christian  church  viay  have  been  planted  there 
before  it  was  at  Pliilippi.] 

"We  read  of  visitors  or  sojourners  from  Rome,  both  Jews  and  proselytes,  at  Jerusalem 
on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  (Acts  2:  10.)  It  is  very  probable  that  some  among  these  were 
converted  at  that  time,  and  soon  after  returned  to  Rome,  and  thus  became  the  nucleus 
around  which  was  afterward  gathered  the  church  to  which  Paul  wrote.  [As  Fritzsche 
says :  "They  left  Rome  as  Jews  and  returned  as  Christians. "] 

Had  any  one  of  the  apostles  been  the  founder  of  the  church  in  Rome,  we  should  proba- 
bly have  had,  in  the  Book  of  Acts  or  in  the  Epistle  itself,  some  intimation  of  this  fact. 
The  later  tradition,  which  attributes  to  Peter  the  planting  of  the  Christian  faith  in  this 
metropolis  of  the  world,  is  not  only  unsupported  by  any  historical  evidence,  but  is  bur- 
dened with  very  serious  difficulties.  Jerome  says  ("De  viris  illustribus. "  Ch.  I.)  that 
Peter  went  to  Rome  in  the  second  year  of  Claudius,  A.  D.  42,  to  confute  Simon  Magus, 
and  that  he  was  bishop  there  for  twenty-five  years.  But  we  know  that  he  was  imprisoned 
in  Jerusalem  by  Herod  Agrippa  in  the  fourth  year  of  Claudius  ;  that  he  was  there  at  the 
Council  (Acts  15  :  7,  seq. ),  in  the  tenth  year  of  Claudius— at  which  time,  probably,  the 
agreeu)ent  mentioned  in  Gal.  2  :  9  was  made  among  the  apostles,  that  Peter,  James,  and 
John  should  devote  their  labors  chiefly  to  the  Jews,  and  Paul  and  Barnabas  to  the  Gen- 
tiles ; — that  he  was  at  Antioch  with  Paul  and  Barnabas,  between  the  years  A.  D.  50  and 
A.  D.  55  (Gal.  2  :  11-13);  that  he  wrote  his  First  Epistle  from  Babylon  (1  Peter  5  :  13) ; 
probably  A.  D.  63  or  64,  possibly  seven  or  eight  years  earlier.  It  is  not  likely  that  there 
would  have  been  no  mention  of  Peter  in  the  salutations  in  Rom.  16,  if  he  had  been  at 
that  time  in  Rome  ;  nor  that  he  would  have  been  passed  over  in  silence  if  he  had  been 
there  with  Paul  when  the  latter  wrote  his  five  epistles  from  that  city  (Ephesians,  Philip- 
pians,  Colossians.  Philemon,  2  Timothy).  Thus  it  appears  that  Peter  is  mentioned  in 
the  New  Testament  on  four  different  occasions  between  the  years  A.  D.  42  and  A.  D.  67, 
each  time  as  being  far  from  Rome;  and  that  no  mention  is  made  of  him  on  six  different 
occasions  within  the  same  period  when  he  would  naturally  have  been  mentioned  by  Paul 
if  he  had  been  in  Rome.  In  fact,  there  is  scarcely  any  period  of  half  a  dozen  years, 
during    all    these  twenty-five,   when  he   could  have    resided    continuously  at    Rome, 

7 


8  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS. 


consistently  with  the  historical  notices  of  him  in  the  New  Testament.  [Paul's  invariable 
rule  "not  to  build  upon  another  man's  foundation"  nor  to  "glory  in  another's  province 
in  regard  to  things  made  ready  to  his  hand,"  is  alone  sufficient  to  prove  that  Peter  was 
not  the  founder  of  the  church  in  Rome — a  fact  which  many  Roman  Catholic  writers  freely 
acknowledge.  Meyer  remarks  that  "our  Epistle — since  Peter  cannot  have  been  there 
before  it  was  written — is  a  fact  destructive  of  the  historical  basis  of  the  Papacy  in  so  far  as 
this  is  made  to  rest  on  the  founding  of  the  Roman  Church  and  the  exercise  of  its  episco- 
pate by  that  apostle."  This,  of  course,  does  not  disprove  the  possibility  that  Peter  may 
in  after  years  have  come  to  Rome  and  labored  there  in  the  gospel  (without,  however,  found- 
ing any  particular  church),  and  that  he  there  finally  suffered  martyrdom.  Bishop  Lightfoot 
even  conjectures  that  both  apostles  may  at  some  time  have  been  together  in  Rome,  that 
they  exchanged  once  more  the  hands  of  fellowship,  that  they  gathered,  or  preached  to,  two 
separate,  though  not  necessarily  antagonistic  communities  (traces  of  whose  origin  he  finds 
in  Phil.  1  :  15-18  ;  Col.  4  :  11),  and  that  this  basis  of  fact  "  possibly  underlies  the  tradi- 
tion that  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul  were  joint  founders  of  the  Roman  Church,  and  may 
explain  the  discrepancies  in  the  lists  of  the  early  bishops."  (See  his  "  St.  Paul  and  the 
Three,"  p.  337,  in  his  "Commentary  on  Galatians.")  But  it  is  marvelous  that  this 
separation,  if  it  ever  existed,  was  so  soon  composed,  for  Bishop  Lightfoot  concedes  that 
"at  the  close  of  the  first  century  we  see  no  more  traces  of  a  twofold  church,"  all  the 
Christian  communities  being  united  under  the  presiding  eldership  of  Clement,  and  that 
we  never  hear  of  it  afterward.  On  the  contrary,  Ignatius  of  Autioch  and  Dionysius  of 
Corintli,  both  of  whom  wrote  letters  to  Rome,  and  Hegesippus,  who  visited  Rome,  all  of 
whom  lived  in  the  second  century,  assert  or  imply  in  their  writings  the  unity  and  ortho- 
doxy of  the  Roman  Christians.  To  the  frequent  boast  of  Papists  that  they  belong  to 
that  church  which  was  the  first  and  which  will  be  last,  we  may  simply  reply  that  the  Jeru- 
salem Church  was  the  first  church  of  Christ  on  earth.  If  priority  of  age  is  anything,  we 
should  prefer  to  be  a  Jerusalem  Catholic  rather  than  a  Roman  Catholic.  We  are  aware 
that  some  adherents  of  this  church  now  disclaim  the  term  "Roman."  But  if  Rome  with 
its  hierarchy  were  sunk  by  some  earthquake's  shock,  as  it  yet  may  be,  the  high  and 
special  claim  of  this  church  would  at  once  be  rendered  null  and  void.] 

Neither  is  it  probable  that  the  church  at  Rome  owed  its  origin  to  any  other  apostle. 
There  is  no  intimation  of  this  kind  in  the  New  Testament ;  and  we  know  that  Paul  made 
it  his  rule  not  to  build  on  another  man's  foundation.  (Rom.  15  :  20  ;  compare  2  Cor.  10  : 
14-16.)  He  speaks  of  the  Romans  as  belonging  to  his  field  of  labor  (1  :  13-15).  and 
from  the  salutations  in  chap.  16,  it  appears  that,  although  he  had  not  yet  visited  them, 
many  of  them  had  been  intimately  connected  with  him.  (16:  3-9,  11,  13.)  While, 
therefore,  there  is  every  probability  that  the  church  at  Rome  was  not  founded  by  the 
direct  labors  of  any  apostle,  it  seems  to  have  been  more  closely  connected  in  its  early 
history  with  the  labors  of  Paul  than  with  those  of  any  of  the  rest.  [We  may  therefore 
say  of  Paul,  that  he  was,  directly  or  indirectly,  the  founder  of  all  the  historic  churches  of 
Asia  Minor  and  of  Europe.] 

II.     COMPOSITION  OF  THE  CHURCH  IN  ROME. 

The  view  generally  held  is,  that  the  Centile  element  predominated  in  the  early  Roman 
Church.  It  is  plain  that  there  was  a  very  considerable  Jewish  element.  (2  :  17-29  ;  3  :  1-4, 
9-21  ;  4  :  1  ;  7  :  1-4  ;  and  chapters  9-11).  There  was  a  large  population  of  Jews  in  Rome. 
Pompey  brought  many  captives  thither  from  Judea  ;  and  these  had  greatly  multiplied  in 


INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS.  9 


the  course  of  a  century.  Josephus  speaks  of  eight  thousand  as  attaching  themselves  to 
an  embassy  which  appealed  t^  Augustus.  ("Antiq.,"  xvii.  11,  1.)  This  emperor  assigned 
to  them  for  their  residence  a  district  bcj'ond  the  Tiber.  About  the  time  when  Paul  wrote 
his  epistle,  Seneca  complains  that  many  Romans  had  embraced  the  Jewish  religion  (he 
uses  the  expression  "victi  victoribus  leges  dederunt — the  conquered  have  given  laws  to 
the  conquerors." — Augustine,  "  De  Civitate  Dei,"  Lib.  vi.,  ch.  11),  and  Juvenal  scoflFs 
at  Judaizing  Romans  (Sat.  xiv.,  v.  96-104).  Still,  the  Jews  formed  but  a  comparatively 
insignificant  portion  of  the  population  of  the  great  capital  of  the  world  ;^  and  it  seems 
most  probable  that  a  church  which  had  existed  so  long,  and  become  so  widely  known, 
must  have  been  mostly  made  up  of  Gentile  converts.  The  tenor  of  the  Epistle  confirms 
this.  It  is  as  the  apostle  of  the  Gentiles  that  Paul  writes  them.  (1  :  5,  6,  13  ;  9  :  3,  4; 
10 :  1  ;  11  :  13,  14,  22,  23,  25,  30,  31  ;  15 :  15,  16.)  ["  From  the  description  of  mo^t  of  the 
persons  named  in  chap.  16,  from  the  express  approval  given  to  the  doctrine  in  which  the 
Romans  had  been  instructed,  (6  :  17  ;  16  :  17),  and  even  from  the  fact  of  the  composition 
of  the  letter  itself,  inasmuch  as  not  one  of  the  now  extant  letters  of  the  apostle  is  directed 
to  a  non-PmiUne  church,  we  may  with  certainty  infer  that  Pauline  Christianity  was  pre- 
ponderant in  Rome  ;  and  from  this  it  is  a  further  necessary  inference  that  a  very  import- 
ant part  of  the  Roman  Church  consisted  of  Gentile  Christians."  (Meyer.)  These  Gen- 
tile believers,  however,  may  have  been  Jewish  proselytes  before  they  became  Christians, 
and  so  the  church  of  Rome  may  have  been  "  primarily,  at  least,  one  of  the  churches  of  the 
circumcision."  (Plumptre.)  Similar  is  the  view  of  Jowett,  who  describes  the  Roman 
Church  as  of  "Gentile  origin  and  Jewish  character."  And  this  view  is  not  inconsistent 
with  the  generally  Pauline  character  of  their  doctrine,  since  a  majority  of  them  may  have 
come  from  Greece  and  Asia  Minor,  and  may  have  been  some  of  Paul's  earliest  converts  in 
tho.se  countries.] 

It  seems  most  likely,  on  the  whole,  that  the  Gentile  element  formed  the  majority  : 
but  these  Gentile  believers  were  probably  in  large  part  of  Greek,  rather  than  of  Roman 
origin.  The  names  mentioned  in  the  salutations  are  largely  Greek.  The  earliest  Latin 
versions  of  the  New  Testament  were  made  for  use  in  the  provinces  rather  than  at  Rome  ; 
the  names  of  the  early  bishops  are  more  generally  Greek  than  Latin  ;  and  the  earliest 
literature  of  the  Roman  Church  was  in  Greek.  (Justin  Martyr,  Clement,  Caius,  Hip- 
polytus,  etc.). 

III.    AUTHENTICITY  OF  THE  EPISTLE. 

The  proof  that  the  Apostle  Paul  wrote  this  Epistle  is  such  as  to  satisfy  every  unpre- 
judiced inquirer.  It  bcsars  his  name.  It  has  been  received  as  his  without  question  from 
the  earliest  times.  Its  language  and  style  agree  with  those  of  his  other  undoubted 
epistles.  It  presents  many  striking  coincidences,  as  to  matters  of  fact,  with  other  parts 
of  the  New  Testament.  Compare  15  :  25-31  with  Acts  20  :  2,  3  ;  24  :  17  ;  1  Cor.  16  :  1, 
4  ;  2  Cor.  8  :  1-4 ;  9  :  2.  Also,  16  :  21-23  with  Acts  20  :  4 ;  and  16  :  3,  seq.  with  Acts 
18:  2,  18-26;  1  Cor.  16:  19,  seq. 

In  fine,  it  is  no  exaggeration  to  say,  that  there  is  no  ancient  writing  of  which  the 
authorship  is  more  certain  than  that  of  this  Epistle.     Even  Baur  questions  the  last  two 

1  Gibbon,  in  chapter  .xxxi.,  says:  "  We  may  fairly  estimate  the  iubabitants  of  Rome  at  twelve  hundred  thou- 
sand." Conybeare  and  Ilovvson  and  Canon  Farrar  put  theirs  at  "more  than  two  millions."  According  to  Dr. 
SohafT,  the  .lews  in  Rome  itself  "  numbered  from  twenty  to  thirty  thousand  souls,  had  seven  synagogues  and 
three  cemeteries." — (F.) 


10  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS. 

chapters  only.  [For  resemblances  between  this  Epistle  and  other  epistles  of  Paul,  espe- 
cially that  to  the  Galatians,  see  Lightfoot's  "Commentary  on  the  Galatians,"  pp.  44-48  ; 
and  for  "  Undesigned  Coincidences,"  see  Paley's  "  Horse  Paulinae,"  chapter  II.] 

IV.    THE  PLACE  FROM  WHICH  THE  EPISTLE  WAS  SENT. 

Three  names  in  the  salutations  very  distinctly  point  to  Corinth  as  the  place  where  this 
Epistle  was  written. 

1.  We  learn  from  16  :  23  that  the  apostle  was  the  guest  of  Gaius  when  he  wrote  it ; 
and  this  Gaius  was  one  of  the  converts  baptized  by  Paul  at  Corinth.  (1  Cor.  1:  14.) 
Identity  of  persons  is  not,  indeed,  certainly  inferred  from  identity  of  names,  especially 
when  the  name  is  a  very  common  one.  But  in  connection  with  other  known  circum- 
stances, the  identity  of  the  persons  is  in  this  case  a  very  safe  inference.  What  more 
natural,  than  that  the  apostle  should  be  entertained  by  one  of  the  very  few  Corinthians 
whom  he  had  baptized  with  his  own  hands. 

2.  Phebe,  who  is  commended  to  the  Roman  disciples  (16  :  1),  and  who  seems  to  have 
been  the  bearer  of  the  Epistle,  was  a  member,  very  probably  a  deaconess,  of  the  church 
at  Cenchrea,  the  Eastern  port  of  Corinth. 

3.  Erastus,  designated  as  the  chamberlain,  or  treasurer,  of  the  city  (16  :  23),  is  men- 
tioned in  2  Tim.  4  :  20,  in  connection  with  Corinth.     See  also  Acts  19  :  21,  22. 

We  may  consider  it  settled,  therefore,  that  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  was  written 
from  Corinth.  (The  confirmation  furnished  by  the  subscription  is  of  little  account,  as  the 
subscriptions  were  added  at  a  later  date,  and  some  of  them  are  unquestionably  false. ) 

V.    DATE  OF  THE  EPISTLE. 

Paul's  first  missionary  tour  was  confined  to  Asia  Minor.  (Acts  13:  4,  14.)  On  his 
second  tour  (Acts  15  :  36  ;  18  :  21),  he  visited  Corinth,  and  remained  there  at  least  a  year 
and  a  half.  (Acts  18  :  11-15.)  At  this  time  he  became  acquainted  with  Aquila  and 
Priscilla,  and  labored  with  them  in  their  common  handiwork,  as  well  as  in  the  work  of  the 
gospel.  (Acts  18  :  2,  3.)  But  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  could  not  have  been  written  at 
this  time  ;  for,  when  it  was  written,  Aquila  and  Priscilla  were  in  Rome.  (16  :  3-5).  No 
subsequent  visit  of  Paul  to  Corinth  is  expressly  mentioned  in  Acts  ;  but  he  intimates,  in. 
2  Cor.  13:  1,  that  he  had  already  visited  them  twice;  and  we  know  that  on  his  third 
missionary  tour  (Acts  18 :  23 ;  21  :  8),  he  spent  three  months  in  Greece.  (20  :  2,  3).  He 
would  not  be  likely  to  omit  visiting  that  city  of  Greece,  which  was,  in  a  Christian  point 
of  view,  the  most  important  of  all.  At  this  time,  Sopater,  Gaius,  Timothy,  and  proba- 
bly Erastus,  were  with  him,  (Acts  20 :  4,  seq.  ;  19  :  21,  22.)  Now  all  these  were  with  him 
when  he  wrote  to  the  Romans.  (16  :  21,  23.)  Paul's  plans  at  this  time,  as  described  in 
the  Acts  and  in  the  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians,  agree  exactly  with  those  indicated  in  this 
Epistle.  He  was  about  to  go  to  Jerusalem  (Acts  20  :  22),  to  carry  thither  the  contribu- 
tions which  had  been  gathered  by  the  Christians  of  Macedonia  and  Achaia  for  the  relief 
of  their  brethren  in  Judea  (Acts  24:  17;  1  Cor.  16:  2-4;  2  Cor.  8  :  6-11),  intending, 
after  he  had  done  this,  to  visit  Rome.  (Acts  19  :  21.)  All  these  circumstances  agree 
with  what  he  writes  to  the  Romans  in  15  :  23-28.^     It  is  quite  certain,  therefore,  that  this 

1  The  fact  that  no  mention  is  luado  of  this  charitable  collection  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  while  it  is 
mentioned  in  other  letters  of  this  group  (1,2,  Corinthians,  Romans)  is  urged  by  Bishop  Wordsworth  in  proof 
that  the  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians  were  written  subsequently  to  that  to  the  Galatians,  especially  as  itsniention, 
had  it  been  then  undertaken,  would  have  been  exceedingly  appropriate  to  the  design  of  this  Epistle,  and  could 
hardly  have  failed  to  find  place  in  it.— (F.) 


INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS.  11 

Epistle  was  written  during  the  time  which  Paul  spent  in  Corinth,  while  engaged  in  his 
third  missionary  journey. 

It  remains  to  fix,  as  nearly  as  we  can,  the  date  of  that  visit.  We  will  take,  as  the 
surest  and  most  convenient  starting  point,  A.  D.  52,  the  date  of  the  decree  of  Claudius, 
banishing  the  Jews  from  Rome.  See  Hackett  on  Acts,  notes  on  18  :  2.  Aquila  and 
Pi'iscilla  had  already  reached  Corinth  after  that  decree,  and  Paul  dwelt  there  with  them 
at  least  a  year  and  a  half.  He  could  hardly  have  left  Corinth  before  the  spring  of  A.  D. 
54.  Embarking  from  Cenchrea,  he  sailed  for  Sj-ria  (Acts  18  :  18),  by  way  of  Epliesus, 
Cesarea,  and  Jerusalem.  At  Ephcsus  he  made  but  a  short  stay,  spending  probably  one 
Sabbath  with  his  countrymen  there  (Acts  18  :  9),  and  leaving  Acjuila  and  Priscilla  ti)ere. 
Proceeding  thence  to  Cesarea,  and  landing  there,  he  went  up  to  Jerusalem,  and  saluted 
the  church,  and  probably  spent  the  Passover  with  them  (Acts  18:  21,  22) ;  after  which 
he  went  down  to  Antioch,  and  "spent  some  time  there  "  (Acts  18  :  23)  before  he  set  out 
on  his  third  missionary  tour. 

It  must  have  been  as  late  as  the  autumn  of  A.  D.  54,  perhaps  the  spring  of  A.  D.  55, 
when  he  started  on  this  journey.  He  went  through  Galatia  and  Phrygia  to  Ephesus  (Acts 
18  :  23  ;  19:  1-4),  where  he  spent  about  two  and  a  half  years.  (Acts  19:  8,  three 
months  ;  ver.  10,  two  years ;  ver.  21,  22,  a  season.  All  these  periods  seem  to  be  distinct 
and  successive.)  He  could  not  have  left  Ephesus  earlier  than  the  spring  of  A.  D.  57. 
He  spent  the  ensuing  summer  in  Macedonia  and  Achaia  (x\cts  20  :  1-6),  and  probably  at 
this  time  proceeded  as  far  west  as  Illyricum  (15  :  19) — for  it  is  hardly  possible  to  find  any 
earlier  place  for  that  journey — before  he  came  into  Greece.  (Acts  20  :  3.)  His  abode 
there  of  three  months  (Acts  20  :  3)  could  hardly  have  begun  much  before  the  close  of 
A.  D.  57,  and  would  consequently  end  in  the  early  part  of  A.  D.  58.  When  he  left 
Corinth,  the  winter  was  past,  for  he  purposed  at  first  to  go  by  sea  (Acts  20  :  3) ;  yet  the 
spring  could  not  have  been  far  advanced,  for  he  hoped  to  be  at  Jerusalem  at  the  Feast  of 
Penteco.st  in  May.     (Acts  20  :  16.)  ' 

The  Epistle  to  the  Romans  was  therefore  probably  written  in  the  early  part  of  A.  D.  58. 

According  to  the  chronology  of  Conybeare  and  Howson,  Paul  was  taken  from  Cesarea 
to  be  carried  as  a  prisoner  to  Rome,  in  August,  A.  D.  60.  (Vol.  II.,  p.  543  Scribner's 
ed.)*  He  had  been  a  prisoner  at  Cesarea  for  two  years.  (Acts  24  :  27.)  Allowing  five  or 
six  months  for  the  previous  journey  from  Corinth  to  Jerusalem,  and  the  occurrences  at 
the  latter  place  before  he  was  removed  to  Cesarea  (Acts  20  :  3  ;  23  :  35),  we  have  a  very 
satisfactory  corroboration  of  our  previous  calculation.  Two  years  and  five  months, 
reckoned  backward  from  August,  A.  D.  60,  would  bring  us  to  March  A.  D.  58. 

VI.    OCCASION  OF  WRITING  THE  EPISTLE. 

[The  Epi.stle  to  the  Romans  was  not  written,  like  those  to  the  Corinthians  and  the 
Galatians,  to  correct  local  abuses  and  errors;  but  for  the  most  part  it  is  enc.vclical,  or 
catholic,  in  its  nature,  and  would  be  well  adapted  to  the  needs  of  any  church  existing  in  the 
apostle's  time.  For  in  the  churches  of  that  age  there  were,  to  a  greater  or  less  degree, 
Judaizing  tendencies  on  the  one  hand,  and  Hellenizing  or  paganizing  tendencies  on  the 

1  Paul  would  then  arrive  at  Rome  in  the  spring  of  a.  d.  61,  the  seventh  j-ear  of  Nero's  reign,  and  the  twenty- 
fourth  of  his  life.  The  great  tire  at  Rome,  and  the  consequent  persecution  of  Christians  occurred  a.  d.  64,  and 
hence  were  probably  subsequent  to  Paul's  release  from  imprisonment.  It  is  now  commonly  supposed  that  after 
a  brief  second  imprisonment  he  was  beheaded  on  the  Ostian  Way,  in  the  year  66  or  67.  Nero  committed 
suicide  a.  d  68.— (F.) 


12  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS. 


other  ;  and  we  cannot  suppose  the  Roman  Church  formed  an  exception  in  this  respect. 
(14:  12;  16  :  17.)  During  the  third  missionary  tour  of  the  apostle,  he  wrote  the  first 
four  epistles  of  the  New  Testament,  that  to  the  Romans  being  the  last  written.  A  short 
time  before  indicting  this  letter,  he  had,  with  much  anguish  of  heart,  written  to  the 
paganizing  Corinthians,  and  to  the  Judaizing  Galatians.  As  some  of  them  doubted  or 
denied  that  he  was  an  apostle,  he  felt  obliged  in  these  letters  to  assert  and  prove  his 
divine  call  to  the  apostleship ;  but  his  principal  endeavor  was  to  win  back  his  erring 
brethren  from  their  disorders  and  immoralities,  and  from  their  vain  trusting  in  the  ritual 
ceremonies  of  Judaism,  those  "weak  and  beggarly  rudiments,"  to  seek  salvation  in  which 
was,  to  him,  hke  seeking  the  living  among  the  dead.  And  now,  in  a  calmer  frame  of 
mind,  he  sits  down  to  write  out  for  the  benefit  of  his  brethren  in  the  world's  capital  whom 
he  intended  speedily  to  visit,  and  from  whom  he  would  fain  secure  a  favorable  reception 
for  himself,  and  for  the  gospel  which  he  preached,  the  substance  of  that  which  had  so 
recently  and  so  intensely  occupied  his  mind,  to  wit :  "The  position  of  the  Christian  in 
reference  to  the  Law,  and  of  the  relations  of  Judaism  to  Heathenism,  and  of  both  to 
Christianity."  (Farrar.)  He  had  preached  the  gospel  of  grace  in  the  principal  cities  of 
the  East,  and  he  would  naturally  wish  to  do  the  same  in  the  imperial  city,  of  whose 
church  he  may  have  heard  much  from  the  lips  of  Aquila  and  Priscilla,  ^  among  whose 
members  he  had  many  personal  friends,  and  in  whose  welfare  he  felt  the  deepest  interest. 
But  he  knew  the  dangers  which  would  attend  his  journey  to  Jerusalem,  as  well  as  the 
common  uncertainties  of  life,  and  thus  he  who  had  oftentimes  been  hindered  hitherto 
(1  :  13  ;  15  :  22)  might  again  be  prevented  from  orally  communicating  the  gospel  to  his 
Roman  brethren.  "Besides,"  as  Godet  remarks,  "should  he  arrive  at  Rome  safe  and 
sound,  he  had  too  much  tact  to  think  of  putting  the  members  of  such  a  church,  as  it  were, 
on  the  catechumen's  bench.  In  these  circumstances  how  natural  the  idea  of  filling  up,  by 
means  of  writing,  the  blank  which  Providence  had  permitted,  and  of  giving,  in  an 
epistolary  treatise  addressed  to  the  church,  the  Christian  instruction  which  it  had  missed, 
and  which  was  indispensable  to  the  solidity  of  its  faith."  At  this  time  also,  as  Paul  was 
about  to  depart  for  the  East  to  carry  the  offerings  of  Grentiles  to  the  poor  saints  in  Jeru- 
salem, Phebe,  a  deaconess  in  the  neighboring  church  of  Cenchrea,  was,  as  is  commonly 
supposed,  about  to  sail  in  an  opposite  direction  for  the  Empire's  capital  city,  which  Paul 
said  he  "must  see."  (Acts  19:  21.)  And  this  her  journey  Romeward  furnished,  of 
course,  a  convenient  opportunity  of  sending  the  letter.  In  this  way,  apparently, 
originated  "The  Epistle  of  Paul  to  the  Romans,"  which  is  characterized  by  Dr.  Schaflf 
as  "  the  epistle  of  the  epistles,"  by  Dr.  Meyer,  as  "  the  grandest  and  ricliest  in  contents 
of  all  the  apostle's  letters,"  ^  and  by  Coleridge,  as  "the  most  profound  work  in  existence."] 

VII.    LANGUAGE  IN  WHICH  THE  EPISTLE  WAS  WRITTEN. 

[It  might  be  supposed  that  Paul,  when  writing  to  the  Romans,  would,  if  he  were 
able,  use  the  Latin  tongue,  since  the  letter  was  not  only  addressed  to  Roman  residents, 

iDe  Wette  and  Meyer  wrsas  Hemsen,  Hug,  Olshausen,  Neander,  Wieseler,  Farrar,  and  Pluiuptre,  hold  that 
these  were  Paul's  converts  at  Corinth,  and  were  not  members  of  the  Roman  Church.  It  will  be  recollected  that 
Paul  abode  with  these  two  disciples  at  Corinth  for  the  space  of  at  least  one  year  and  six  months.  — (F.) 

2  The  last  literary  work  of  Dr.  Meyer  (died  June  2Ist.  1873)  was  the  preface  (written  March,  IS?."?)  to  the 
English  edition  of  his  "Commentary  on  Romans."  And  it  is  an  interestinp;  circumstance  that  the  words 
inscribed  on  his  tombstone  are  taken  from  this  Epistle:  14:  8  :  "  Whether  we  live,  we  live  unto  the  Lord;  and 
whether  we  die,  we  die  unto  the  Lord  ;  whether  we  live  therefore,  or  die,  we  are  the  Lord's." — (F.) 


INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS.  13 

but  was  written  by  an  amanuensis  who  bore  a  Latin  name.'  But  it  must  be  remembered 
that  the  Greek  hxnguagc  had  at  this  time  become  well-nigh  universal.  "It  was,"  says 
Gribbon,  "almost  impossible,  in  any  province,  to  find  a  Human  subject  of  a  liberal  educa- 
tion who  was  at  once  a  stranger  to  the  Greek  and  to  the  Latin  language."  As  vouchers 
for  this  general  ac(iuaintance  with  Greek  on  the  part  of  the  Romans,  Tholuck,  in  Chapter 
3,  of  his  "Introduction,"  cites  Tacitus,  Ovid,  Martial,  Juvenal,  and  Suetonius.  It  is, 
moreover,  a  singular  circumstance,  yet  "nothing  is  more  certain  than  that  the  Church  of 
Rome  was  at  this  time  a  Greek,  and  not  a  Latin  Church."  See  Smith's  "Bible  Dic- 
tionary," p.  2746,  also  IF.  of  this  Introduction.  "The  literary  language  at  Rome,"  says 
Godet,  "was  Greek.  This  is  established  by  the  numerous  Greek  inscriptions  in  the 
Catacombs,  by  the  use  of  the  Greek  language  in  the  letter  of  Ignatius  to  the  Church  of 
Rome,  in  the  writings  of  Justin  Martyr  composed  at  Rome,  and  in  those  of  Irenaeus 
composed  in  Gaul,"  as  also  in  those  of  Ilippolytus,  Bishop  of  Ostia,  the  seaport  of  Rome. 
"The  early  bishops  and  divines  of  Rome  were  Greeks  by  descent  or  education,  or  both. 
Pope  Cornelius  addressed  the  churches  in  the  Hellenic  language  in  the  middle  of  the  third 
century.  The  Apostle's  Creed,  even  in  the  Roman  form,  was  originally  composed  in 
Greek.  The  Roman  Liturgy  (ascribed  to  Clement  of  Rome)  was  Greek.  The  inscrip- 
tions in  the  oldest  catacombs,  and  tlie  eintai)hs  of  the  popes  down  to  the  middle  of  the 
third  century,  are  Greek."  (Schaff. )  We  may  add  that  most  of  the  manuscrii)ts  di.scov- 
ered  in  the  ruins  of  Herculaneum  appear  to  have  been  written  in  Greek.  Milman,  in  his 
"Latin  Christianity,"  saj's :  "The  Church  of  Rome,  and  most,  if  not  all,  the  churches 
of  the  West  were,  if  we  may  so  speak,  Greek  religious  colonies."  Tarsus  also,  where 
Paul  was  born,  was  of  Greek  origin,  and  was  celebrated  for  its  Greek  schools  and  learning. 
The  geographer  Strabo  (born  about  60  b.  c.)  says  that  in  its  zeal  for  learning  and  phil- 
osophy it  excelled  even  Athens  and  Alexandria.  Paul  "doubtless  spoke  Greek  from 
childhood"  (Tholuck),  and  we  do  not  suppose  that  he  utterly  discarded  Greek  study  in 
Jerusalem.  His  liberal-minded  teacher,  "  Rabban  Gamliel,"  favored  Greek  study,  and, 
according  to  the  Talmud,  knew  Greek  literature  better  than  any  other  doctor  of  the  law. 
"A  thousand  students  were  in  the  academy  of  my  grandsire,"  said  a  descendant  of 
Gamahel,  "five  hundred  of  whom  studied  the  Greek"  ;  and  the  Talmud  maintains  that 
Paul  "had  alwaj's  a  Grecian  poem  on  his  lips."  Indeed,  Dr.  Isaac  M.  Wise,  President 
of  the  Hebrew  Union  College,  Cincinnati  (from  whose  writings  we  have  made  these  last 
extracts)  says,  in  his  "History  of  the  Hebrews'  Second  Commonwealth,"  p.  307,  that 
"in  the  academy  at  Jerusalem  he  (Paul)  was  noted  as  paying  more  attention  to  Greek 
poetry  and  infidel  books  than  to  his  studies"  !    From  Acts  21  :  37  we  are  assured  that 

iThat  Paul  must  have  had  considerable  acquaintance  with  the  Latin  language,  if  not  at  the  time  this  Epistle 
TPas  written,  at  least  some  years  afterward,  is  most  certain.  The  Latin  dialect  would,  of  course,  naturally 
extend  itself  wherever  the  Roman  tiovernment  was  established,  and  this  had  at  that  time  become  almost 
nniver.sal.  This  language  was  stamped  on  the  national  coins;  it  was  used  in  trade,  in  public  edicts,  in  legal 
[)roceedings.  I'aul  always  was  a  subject  of  the  Roman  Government,  was  born  in  a  Roman  "free  city,"  and 
passed  his  life  in  Roman  colonies  and  provinces.  In  every  country  of  his  residence  he  could  have  seen  Roman 
soldieis,  centurions,  chiliarchs,  or  military  tribunes  (Acts  21 :  31),  pra'tors  and  lictors  (Acts  16  :  20,  H.5),  procon- 
suls and  procurators,  or  "  governors."  (Acts  13 :  7 ;  23:  24.)  Latin  was  used  to  some  extent  in  Palestine  and  in 
Jerusalem.  It  was  one  of  the  three  languages  which  were  inscribed,  not  only  on  the  inner  separating  wall  of 
the  Court  of  the  Gentiles,  forbidding  any  foreigner  to  go  within  the  sanctuary  on  pain  of  death  (.Josephus' 
"Antiquities,"  xv.,  xi.,  5  ;  "  Wars,"  vi.,  ii.,  4),  but  also  on  the  Saviour's  cross.  The  word  Christian,  though  first 
expressed  in  Greek  letters,  was  yet  put  in  a  Latinized  form.  And  when  we  further  consider  that  Paul,  as  is 
commonly  believed,  was  chained  to  a  Roman  soldier  during  liis  two  yeirs'  imprisonment  in  Cesarea  and 
his  two  years'  impri.sonment  at  Rome,  to  say  nothing  of  his  long-protracted  sea  voyage,  we  must  conclude  that 
the  apostle  in  his  last  years  was  familiarly  acquainted  with  Latin. — (F.) 


14  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS. 

Paul  could  speak  Greek.  He  certainly  quoted  several  times  from  the  Greek  poets  (Acts 
17  :  28  :  1  Cor.  15  :  33;  Titus  1  :  12),  and  with  some  of  them — as  when  he  refers  his 
Athenian  audience  to  certain  ("ves)  of  their  own  poets  (to  wit,  Aratus  and  Cleanthes) — he 
seems  to  have  had  more  than  a  hearsay  acquaintance.  We  have  spoken  of  Greek  as  a 
current  language  among  the  ancients.^  The  Old  Testament  Apocrypha  was  written 
mainly  in  Greek  (only  Ecclesiasticus  and  1  Maccabees  were  originally  written  in  modern 
Hebrew),  and  the  Old  Testament  was  translated,  not  into  Aramaic,  or  modern  Hebrew, 
but  into  Greek,  and  it  was  this  version  of  the  Seventy  which  the  New  Testament  writers 
mainly  used.  Noticeable  also  is  the  fact  that  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  and  James' 
Epistle  to  the  Jews  of  the  "Dispersion"  were  written,  not  in  Aramaic,  but  in  Greek. 
The  Greek  dialect,  too,  seems  to  have  been  almost  as  commou  in  Palestine  as  the 
vernacular  Aramaic.  Indeed,  Dr.  Roberts,  author  of  the  "Companion  to  the  Revised 
Version,"  endeavors  to  show  in  his  "Discussions  on  the  Gospels"  that  Christ  and  the 
apostles  spoke  mostly  in  Greek,  and  only  occasionally  in  Aramaic.  Of  course,  he  would 
decide  that  all  the  Gospels  and  other  New  Testament  Scriptures  were  originally  spoken  or 
written  in  Greek.  Similarly,  S.  G.  Green,  in  his  "  Grammar  of  the  Greek  Testament"  : 
"It  was  the  Greek  of  the  Septuagint,  in  all  probability,  our  Lord  and  his  apostles 
generally  spoke.  The  dialect  of  Galilee  was  not  a  corrupt  Hebrew,  but  a  provincial 
Greek."  Josephus,  a  Jewish  priest,  who  lived  in  the  time  of  the  apostles,  wrote  his 
"  Wars  "  and  "Antiquities  "  in  Grieek,  though  he  states  that  he  composed  the  first-named 
work  originally  in  Hebrew  for  the  benefit  of  the  "  Upper  Barbarians."  That  the  Greek 
people  or  language  had  penetrated  even  into  barbarian  regions  is  evident  from  Seneca's 
query  :  "What  is  the  meaning  of  Greek  cities  in  barbarous  countries,  and  the  Macedo- 
nian language  among  Indians  and  Persians?"  For  the  general  prevalence  of  the  Greek 
language,  especially  in  Palestine  in  the  time  of  Christ,  see  Hug's  "Introduction  to  the 
New  Testament, "  pp.  326-340;  Dr.  SchaflF's  "  Companion  to  the  Greek  Testament,"  p. 
7  ;  Prof.  Hadley's  article  on  the  "Language  of  the  New  Testament,"  and  B.  R  West- 
cott's  article  on  the  New  Testament,  in  Smith's  "Bible  Dictionary,"  pp.  1590,  2139; 
also  articles  on  the  "Language  of  Palestine  in  the  Age  of  Christ  and  the  Apostles,"  in 
the  April  and  July  numbers  of  the  "Biblical  Repository  "  for  1831.] 

VIII.    THE  OBJECT  OF  THE  EPISTLE. 

The  main  object  which  the  apostle  had  in  view  in  writing  this  Epistle  is  nowhere 
formally  stated ;  but  it  may  be  inferred  from  the  Introduction,  and  from  the  contents  of 
the  Epistle.  In  the  Introduction  he  expresses  his  earnest  desire  to  visit  the  disciples  at 
Rome,  in  order  to  contribute  something  to  their  confirmation  and  spiritual  comfort. 
(1  :  11,  12.)  Doubtless  he  had  the  same  end  in  view  in  writing  to  them  ;  and  he  seeks 
to  attain  this  end  by  unfolding  the  way  of  justification  and  salvation  through  faith  in 
Christ.  The  object  of  his  letter,  then,  is  to  present  such  an  exhibition  of  the  way  of 
justification  and  salvation  through  faith  in  Christ,  as  would  be  adapted  to  comfort  and 
confirm  the  disciples  at  Rome.  The  Epistle  might  well  take  its  title  from  the  sixteenth 
verse  of  the  first  chapter  :  "The  Gospel  the  Power  of  God  unto  Salvation  to  every  one 
that  believeth"  ;  and  the  manner  in  which  the  apostle  treats  this  subject  is  adapted  to 

iPaiil  evidently  needed  not  to  be  specially  endowed  with  the  gift  of  tongues,  as  Wordsworth  supposes,  in  order 
to  obey  his  Lord's  last  command,  since  a  knowledge  of  Greek  and  Hebrew  alone  would  enable  him  to  preach 
intelligently  in  almost  all  parts  of  the  civilized  world.~(F.) 


INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS.  15 

promote  the  spiritual  confirmation  and  comfort  of  all  who  devoutly  study  this  Epistle. 
May  the  readers  of  the  following  notes  find  them  helpful  toward  that  happy  result. 
Pawtuxet,  R.  I.  ALBERT  N.  ARNOLD. 

[On  the  nth  day  of  October,  1883,  the  writer  of  the  above  lines  ceased  from  hie 
earthly  toils,  and  entered  into  rest.  Yet  his  labors  for  Christ  were  not  felt  by  him  to  be 
irksome,  and  those  especially  which  were  spent  in  the  study  of  this  noble  Epistle  were 
manifestly  to  him  an  exceeding  pleasure  and  delight.  In  a  letter,  dated  January  7,  1882, 
he  thus  writes  :  '"  I  heartily  wish  that  you  may  have  as  much  enjoyment  in  the  perform- 
ance of  your  work  as  I  had  in  the  performance  of  mine.  And  may  the  blessing  of  our 
common  Master  rest  upon  our  joint  work  to  the  glory  of  his  name  and  the  benefit  of  his 
people."  We  are  glad  to  be  assured,  but  are  not  surprised  to  learn,  that  in  his  last  days 
the  comfort  of  the  Scriptures,  and  especially  of  the  great  doctrines  of  grace,  did  not  fail 
him.  The  old  theology,  which  was  his  soul's  food  in  life,  was  his  abundant  support  in 
his  last  days.  On  hearing,  shortly  before  his  death,  of  the  apparently  approaching  end 
of  a  greatly  endeared  classmate  and  friend,  Thomas  D.  Andtrson,  D.  D.,  he  said  :  "  Mine 
is  an  abundant  entrance.  Tell  him  (speaking  his  friend's  name)  that  we  shall  soon^  meet 
above,  sinners  saved  by  sovereign  grace — sovereign,  redeeming  grace."  "And  this," 
says  the  narrator.  Dr.  J.  C.  Stockbridge,  "he  kept  repeating  over  and  over,  as  if  he 
would  gather  up  all  he  wished  to  say,  of  what  was  profoundest  and  dearest  in  his  religious 
faith,  and  concentrate  it  upon  that  which  was  the  very  heart  and  substance  of  his  creed, 
'sovereign,  redeeming  grace.'  "  If,  since  the  days  of  the  apostles,  there  have  lived  any 
Christian  men  whose  kindliness  and  guilelessness  of  spirit,  whose  blamelessness  of  life, 
and  whose  diligence  in  Christian  labor,  could  furnish  a  ground  of  acceptance  with  God, 
one  of  those  men,  in  my  opinion,  was  Albert  Nicholas  Arnold.  And  yet,  had  it  been 
suggested  to  him  from  without,  or  from  within,  that  he  could  properly  place  this  reliance 
upon  the  righteousness  of  his  character  and  the  goodness  of  his  varied  and  abundant 
works,  laboring  as  he  had  done,  so  assiduously  as  a  preacher  and  pastor,  a  missionary,  a 
theological  instructor  and  writer,  the  thought,  we  believe,  would  have  been  repelled  by 
him  with  as  emphatic  a  "God  forbid"  as  was  ever  uttered  by  the  Apostle  Paul. 
Yet  no  one  was  more  careful  than  he  to  maintain  good  works,  both  as  a  fruit  and  evidence 
of  his  love  for  Christ  and  of  his  fliith  in  him.  May  the  readers  of  these  lines,  by  a  deep 
consciousness  of  their  lost  condition  by  nature,  and  by  a  rich  experience  of  the  "sovereign, 
redeeming  grace  "  of  the  gospel,  be  made  to  feel  that  we  need  no  other  or  better  theology 
than  that  which  is  so  plainly  set  forth  in  the  writings  of  this  blessed  apostle,  and  which 
our  beloved  and  now  lamented  friend  sought  to  embody  in  these  pages.] 

ANALYSIS  OF  THE  EPISTLE. 

Part  I. — Introduction.  (1  :  1-15.)  (a)  Salutatory.  (Ver.  1-7.)  {h)  Conciliatory. 
(Ver.  8-15.) 

Part  11.— Doctrinal     (1  :  16-11  :  36.) 

§  1.  All  Mankind  in  a  Sinful  and  Condemned  State,  and  therefore  in  Need 
OF  the  Salvation  which  the  Gospel  Reveals.  (1:16-3:  20. )  The  subject  opened. 
(1  :  16,  17.) 


lit  was  "soon,"  the  19th  of  the  ensuing  December,  that  the  beloved  Anderson,  a  man  of  kindred  spirit  with 
Arnold,  followed  him  to  the  land  of  rest.  What  a  world  of  darkness  they  have  left  for  what  a  world  of  light : 
Gladly  would  we  exchange,  for  just  their  first  momenfs  experience  in  bliss,  all  the  theology  of  all  the  schools 
of  earth.— (F.) 


16  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS. 

I.  The  general  sinfulness  of  men  proved.     (1  :  18—2  :  29.) 

A.  In  the  case  of  the  Gentiles.  (1  :  18-22.)  God  has  made  known  his  displeasure 
against  all  ungodliness  and  unrighteousness.  (Ver.  18.)  The  Gentiles  are 
both  ungodly  (ver.  19-23)  and  unrighteous.   (Ver.  24-32.) 

£.  In  the  case  of  the  Jews.  (2  :  1-29. )  Those  who  practice  the  same  sins  which  they 
condemn  in  others  are  equally  inexcusable  (2:  1),  for  God's  judgment  will  be 
impartial  (ver.  2-5),  and  justly  most  severe  against  those  who  have  the  most 
hght.  (Ver.  6-16.)  Neither  the  possession  of  the  law  (ver.  17-24),  nor  the 
covenant  of  circumcision  (ver.  25-29),  will  exempt  them  from  condemnation. 

II.  Objections  stated  and  answered.   (3  :  1-8.)     Objection  1.  The  Jew  has  no  advan- 

tage over  the  Gentile.  (Ver.  1.)  Answer  :  The  possession  of  God's  word  is  a 
great  advantage.  (Ver.  2.)  Objection  2.  God's  faithfulness  obliges  him  to 
show  favor  to  the  Jews,  notwithstanding  their  unfaithfulness.  (Ver.  3.) 
Answer:  God's  faithfulness  must  not  be  questioned,  however  unfaithful  men 
maybe.  (Ver.  4.)  Objection  3.  It  would  be  unjust  in  God  to  punish  those 
whose  sins  are  the  occasion  of  displaying  his  righteousness.  (Ver.  5,  7.) 
Answer :  The  principle  which  this  objection  assumes  leads  to  conclusions  man- 
ifestly false  and  impious  ;  as, 

{a)  That  God  cannot  righteously  judge  and  punish  any.     (Ver.  6) 
{b)  That  it  is  lawful  to  do  evil  that  good  may  come.     (Ver.  8.) 

III.  The  charge  of  universal  sinfulness  renewed,  and  confirmed  by  proofs  from  Scrip- 

ture.    (Ver.  9-20.) 
1 2.  The  Way  of  Justification  and  Salvation  Through  Faith  in  Christ. 
(3:  21-5:  21.) 

I.  The  gospel  method  of  justification  described,  as  being — 

A.  In  its  nature, 

(1)  Conditioned  not  on  works,  but  on  faith.     (3  :  21,  22.) 

(2)  Available  for  all  mankind.     (Ver.  22.) 

(3)  Needed  by  all.     (Ver.  22,  23. ) 

(4)  Entirely  gratuitous.     (Ver.  24.) 

B.  As  having,  for  its  ground,  the  propitiatory  sacrifice  of  Christ.     (Ver.  24,  25. ) 

C.  For  its  direct  object,  the  reconciliation  of  God's  righteousness  with  man's  salva- 

tion.    (Ver.  25,  26.) 

D.  For  its  indirect  results, 

(1)  The  exclusion  of  all  boasting.     (Ver.  27,  28.) 

(2)  The  display  of  God's  impartial  mercy  to  both  Jews  and  Gentiles.  (Ver.  29,  30. ) 

(3)  The  confirmation,  not  the  subversion,  of  the  law.     (Ver.  31.) 

II.  That  the  above  method  of  justification  is  in  harmony  with  the  teachings  of  Scrip- 

ture is  shown  by  the  examples  of  Abraham  and  David.     (4  :  1-25.) 

(1)  Abraham  was  justified,  not  by  works,  but  by  faith.     (Ver.  1-5.) 

(2)  David  teaches  that  justification  is  not  of  merit,  but  of  grace.     (Ver.  6-8.) 

(3)  Circumcision  is  not  indispensable  to  justification  ;  for  Abraham  was  justified 

before  he  was  circumcised.     (Ver.  9-12.) 

(4)  The  law  is  not  the  ground  of  justification  ;  for  Abraham,  who  was  justified, 

not  by  the  law,  but  by  faith,  is  in  this  respect  the  pattern  of  all  who  are 
justified,  both  Jews  and  Gentiles.  (Ver.  13-17.)  This  illustrious  pattern 
is  more  fully  described  and  commended.     (Ver.  18-25.) 


INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS.  17 


III.  Tlie  happy  results  of  the  gospel  way  of  justification,  both  to  the  individual 
believer,  and  to  the  race  at  large.     (5  :  1-21.) 

A.  As  it  respects  the  individual  believer,  the  results  are  : 

(1)  Peace  with  God,  including  free  access  to  him.     (Ver.  1,  2.) 

(2)  Joyful  hope  of  future  glory.     (Ver.  2.) 

(3)  iVfflictions  made  subservient  to  the  confirmation  of  our  hope.     (Ver.  3,  4.) 

(4)  The  certainty  of  this  hope. 

(a)  For  God  has  already  given  us  his  Spirit.    (Ver.  5. ) 

(6)  He  has  already  shown  the  fullness  of  his  love  to  us,  by  giving  his  Son  to 

die  for  us  while  we  were  yet  sinners.     (Ver.  6-8.) 
(c)  By  thus  beginning  the  work  of  our  salvation  while  we  were  enemies,  he 
has  given  the  surest  pledge  that  he  will  complete  it  now  that  we  are 
reconciled  to  him  (ver.  9,  10),  so  that  we  have  a  present  and  abound- 
ing joy.     (Ver.  11.) 
£.  As  it  respects  the  race  at  large,  the  benefits  of  the  gospel  way  of  justification 
are  illustrated  by  a  comparison  between  Adam  and  Christ.     (Ver.  12-21.) 

(a)  The  resemblance  between  the  two  cases.     (Ver.  12-14.) 

(b)  The  diff'erences  stated  under  several  aspects.     (Ver.  15-17.) 

(c)  Recapitulation  of  the  whole,  showing  how  men  are  regarded  and  treated 

in  consequence  of  their  connection  with  Adam  and  Christ  respectively. 
(Ver.  18,  19. )     As  the  law  discloses  and  even  aggravates,  the  triumphs 
of  sin,  reigning  in  death,  so  the  gospel  displays  the  superior  triumphs 
of  grace,  reigning  unto  life,  through  .Jesus  Christ.     (Ver.  20,  21.) 
§  3.  This  Way  op  Justification  Favorable  to  Holiness.     (6  :  1-8  :  39.) 
Proposition  I.  Gratuitous  justification  does  not  lead  to  sinful  living.     (6:  1-23.) 

(a)  The  objection  stated.     (Ver.  1.) 

(b)  Its  validity  denied.     (Ver.  2.) 

(c)  The  grounds  of  that  denial.     (Ver.  3-23.) 

I.  The  justified  believer,  agreeably  to  the  very  import  of  his  baptism,  is  brought 
into  such  a  connection  and  comformity  with  Christ  as  dying  and  rising  to  a  new  life,  that 
he  cannot  continue  in  the  old  life  of  sin.  (Ver.  3-6.)  As  Christ's  death  on  account  of  sin 
is  never  to  be  repeated  (ver.  7-10),  so  the  believer  must  regard  his  own  separation  from  sin 
as  final.     (Ver.  11-14.) 

II.  The  very  fact  that  he  is  not  under  the  law,  but  under  grace,  forbids  that  sin 
should  have  dominion  over  him.  (Ver.  14,  15.)  For  his  relation  to  the  law  and  to  grace 
is  like  the  relation  of  a  servant  to  his  master  :  Before  justification,  he  is  a  servant  of  sin, 
under  an  influence  which  secures  his  obedience  to  evil ;  after  justification,  he  is  a  servant 
of  righteousness,  under  an  influence  which  secures  his  obedience  to  good.  (Ver.  16-20.) 
The  former  service  results  in  death,  the  latter  in  eternal  life  ;  and  the  knowledge  of  these 
opposite  consequences  is  a  still  farther  security  for  his  continued  fidelity  to  his  new 
Master.     (Ver.  21-23.) 

Proposition  H.  So  long  as  men  remain  under  the  law,  they  continue  under  the 
power  of  sin.     (7  :  1-25.) 
(a)  The  believer's  relation  to  the  law  may  be  illustrated  by  the  case  of  mar- 
riage.  (Ver.  1-6.)     As  the  wife  is  freed  from  her  conjugal  obligations 
by  the  death  of  her  husband,  so  that  she  is  afterward  at  liberty  to  be 
married  to  another  man  (ver.  1-3) ;  so  we  are  freed  from  our  connection 

B 


18  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS. 

with  the  law,  that  we  may  enter  into  a  new  connection  with  Christ. 
(Ver.  4.)  The  fruit  of  that  first  connection  was  sin.  (Ver.  5.)  The 
fruit  of  this  second  connection  is  holiness.     (Ver.  6.) 

(b)  The  law  has  no  power  to  convert  a  sinner,  or  to  make  a  bad  man  good  ; 

this  illustrated  by  Paul's  own  experience  before  his  conversion  (ver. 
7-13),  (the  effect  of  the  law  is  to  make  sin  known  (ver.  7),  and  also  to 
excite  it  to  greater  activity  (ver.  8-11),  so  that,  while  the  law  is  good 
(ver.  12),  it  becomes  the  occasion  of  manifesting  more  fully  the  exceed- 
ing sinfulness  of  sin.)     (Ver.  13.) 

(c)  The  law  has  no  power  to  sanctify  a  saint,  or  to  make  a  good  man  better  :  this 

illustrated  by  Paul's  own  experience  after  his  conversion.  (Ver.  14-24. ) 
(Even  the  renewed  man,  who  assents  to  the  excellence  of  the  law,  and 
desires  and  purposes  to  fulfill  its  requirements,  finds  that  the  remains  of 
indwelling  sin  often  prove  too  strong  for  his  good  resolutions  (ver.  14-23) ; 
so  that,  as  long  as  he  looks  to  the  law,  he  gets  no  effectual  help  or 
comfort  in  his  strivings  after  holiness.  (Ver.  24.)  Hence  the  conclusion, 
that  if  we  are  ever  to  be  freed  from  the  dominion  of  sin,  it  must  be  by 
becoming  connected  with  Christ.  (Ver.  25.) 
Proposition  III.  Grace  accomplishes  what  the  law  could  not  accomplish.  (8 : 1-17.) 

(a)  Grace  furnishes  not  only  a  justifying  righteousness  (ver.  1),  but  also  a 
regenerating  and  sanctifying  power.  (Ver.  2.)  The  way  in  which  this 
is  done  briefly  explained.     (Ver.  3,  4.) 

{b)  Sanctification  is  the  indispensable  evidence  of  justification.  (Ver.  5-17.) 
The  justified  will  certainly  walk  in  newness  of  life,  because  : 

(1)  Their  inward  moral  disposition  is  thoroughly  changed.     (Ver.  5-8. ) 

(2)  The  Spirit  of  God  dwells  in  and  actuates  them.     (Ver.  9-13.) 

(3)  They  are  children  of  God,  not  only  by  a  formal  adoption  on  his  part,  but 

also  by  a  filial  spirit  on  theirs.     (Ver.  14-17. ) 
Proposition  IV.  The  sufferings  which  believers  undergo  in  this  life  are  not  incon- 
sistent with  their  being  fully  justified  and  accepted  of  God. 
(Ver.  17-30.) 
(a)  For  they  suffer  with  Christ,  that  they  may  be  glorified  with  him.  (Ver.  17.) 
(6)  There  is  an   immeasurable  disproportion  between  the  present  sufferings 
and  the  future  glory.   (Ver.  18.)     The  greatness  of  that  future  glory  is 
seen  : 

(1)  In  the  unconscious  longing  for  its  coming  which  pervades  all  nature.    (Ver. 

19-22.) 

(2)  In  the  conscious  longing  of  believers,  notwithstanding  the  happiness  which 

they  enjoy  in  the  present  foretaste  of  it.     (Ver.  23-25.) 
(c)  Suitable  spiritual  supports  are  afi'orded  them  while  these  sufferings  con- 
tinue.    (Ver.  26,  27.) 
{d)  They  are  assured  that  all  these  sufferings  are  working  for  their  good. 
(Ver.  28-30.) 
Proposition  V.  The  certainty  of  the  salvation  of  believers  is  established.  (Ver. 
31-39.)     They  for  whose  salvation  (ver.  31)  God  has  given  his 
Son,  and  for  whom  the  Son  (ver.  32,  33)  of  God  has  died  and 
risen  from  the  dead  (ver.  34),  can  never  be  separated  from  the 


INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS.  19 

^ — _ — ■ — — — — — — — ■ — — — — — — - — 

love  of  either  by  ai)y  vicissitudes  of  the  present  life  (ver. 
35-37),  or  by  any  other  events  or  agencies  whatsoever.    (Ver. 
38,  39.) 
H-  The  Rejection  of  the  Jews.     (9  :  l-ll  :  36.) 

(a)  The  fact  of  tlieir  rejection,  though  very  lamentable  (ver.  1-5),  is  not 
inconsistent  with  God's  truth  and  justice  :  not  with  his  tnith,  because 
the  blessings  which  they  fail  to  secure  were  never  promised  indiscrimi- 
nately to  all  the  natural  seed  of  Abraham  (ver.  6-13) ;  not  with  his 
justice,  because — 

(1)  These  blessings  are  God's  free  gifts,  bestowed  according  to  his   sovereign 

pleasure.     (V^er.  14-18.) 

(2)  The  unbelieving  Jews  only  receive  the  righteous  recompense  of  their  willful 

sin.     (Ver.  19-24.) 

(3)  Indeed,  their  rejection  is  plainly  foretold  by  their  own  prophets.   {Ver.  25-29.) 

In  fine,  the  Gentiles  obtain  righteousness  through  faith  in  Christ,  and  the 
Jews  fail  to  obtain  it  because  of  unbelief   (Ver.  30-33.)     Thus  it  appears 
that : 
{h)  The  cause  of  the  failure  of  the  Jews  to   attain  justification  (for  which 
failure  the  apostle  again  expresses  his  sorrow)  (10  :  12)  is,  that  they 
persist  in  seeking  justification  in  their  own  false  way,  instead  of  seeking 
it  in  God's  true  way.  (Ver.  3-11.)     Justification  is  attainable  on  pre- 
cisely the  same  terms  by  Jews  and  Gentiles.   (Ver.  12-13.)     Therefore 
the  gospel  ought  to  be  preaclied  to  all  nations.   (Ver.  14,  15.)     All  this 
is  confirmed  by  the  testimony  of  the  Scriptures.     (Ver.  16-21.) 
(c)  There  is  a  limit  to  this  rejection,  both  as  to  persons,  and  as  to  time. 
(Chap.  11.) 

I.  As  to  persons,  it  is  not  total,  for  Paul  himself  (ver.  1),  and  many  others  among 
the  Jews  (ver.  2-5),  have  obtained  justification  through  free  grace  (ver.  6),  though  the 
greater  part  of  the  nation  has  been  rejected  (ver.  7),  as  their  own  Scriptures  had  fore- 
told.    (Ver.  8-10.) 

II.  As  to  time,  it  is  not  final;  but  God  designs,  by  this  temporary  rejection  of  the 
Jews,  to  facilitate  the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles.  (Ver.  11-16.)  The  Gentiles  are 
admonished  not  to  glory  over  the  Jews,  as  if  their  advantage  over  them  was  due  to  any 
merit  of  their  own.  (Ver.  17-22.)  So  soon  as  the  Jews  turn  from  their  unbelief,  God 
is  able  and  willing  to  save  them.  (Ver.  23,  24. )  Nay,  more ;  he  has  positively  determined 
that  they  shall  at  last  turn  and  be  saved.  (Ver.  25-32.)  In  all  this,  his  unsearchable 
wisdom  is  gloriously  displayed.     (Ver.  33-36. ) 

Part  111.— Practical     (12:    1-15:   13.)     [a]  General   Precepts,   applicable  to  all. 
(12:  1-13  :  14.)  {h)  Special  Directions  in  regard  to  the  treatment  of  those  who  are  weak 
and  over-scrupulous.     (14  :  1-15  :  13. ) 
(a)  General  Precepts. 

(1)  Exhortation  to  entire  consecration  to  God.     (12  :  1.)     This  results  in  a  prac- 

tical conformity  to  his  will  (ver.  2),  and  in  humilitj'.     (Ver.  3.) 

(2)  Duties  to  the  church  (ver.  4-8),  and  to  the  brethren.     (Ver.  9-13.) 

(3)  Duties  to  the  world,  and  especially  to  enemies.     (Ver.  14-21.) 

(4)  Duties  to  rulers.     (13  :  1-7.) 

(5)  The  duty  of  love  to  all  men.     (Ver.  8-10.) 


20  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS. 

(6)  All  these  duties  enforced  by  the  consideration  that  salvation  is  near.     [Ver. 
11-14.) 
(6)  Special  Directions  in  regard  to  the  treatment  of  brethren  whose  consciences  are 
weak  and  are  over-scrupulous.     (14  :  1-15  :  13. ) 

I.  The  Christian  who  regards  the  Jewish  restrictions  as  to  days  and  meats  as  still 
binding  is  to  be  received  without  disputations.     (14  :  1,  2.) 

(rt)  Because  this  weakness  does  not  hinder  his  acceptance  with  God.  (Ver.  3,  4. ) 
{b)  Because  he  is  conscientious  in  it.     (Ver.  5-9.) 

(c)  Because  all  such  differences  should  be  referred  to  the  final  judgment. 
(Ver.  10-12.) 

II.  Those  who,  through  better  knowledge,  are  free  from  such  scruples,  must  not  so 
use  their  freedom  as  to  lead  their  weaker  brethren  into  sin.     (Ver.  13.) 

(a)  Because,  though  the  use  of  this  liberty  is  not  wrong  in  itself,  yet  it  is  a 

breach  of  charity  to  use  it  to  the  injury  of  a  brother.     (Ver.  14,  15.) 

(b)  Because  such  a  course  brings  religion  into  reproach.     (Ver.  Ifi.) 

(c)  Because  the  rise  of  this  liberty  is  no  essential  part  of  Christian  duty. 

(Ver.  17,  18.) 
{d)  Because  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  obligation  to  promote  the  peace  of  the 
church,  and  the  edification  of  the  brethren.  (Ver.  19.)  They  there- 
fore who  know  that  the  eating  of  certain  meats  is  not  sinful,  must  not 
use  their  liberty  in  such  a  way  as  to  entice  others  who  have  not  this 
knowledge  to  do  the  same  thing  in  violation  of  their  consciences.  (Ver. 
20-23.)  They  must  rather  bear  the  infirmities,  and  seek  the  edification 
of  the  weak.  (15  :  1,  2.)  Thus  they  must  imitate  the  self-denying 
example  of  Christ.  (Ver.  3-7.)  For  Christ,  agreeably  to  the  predic- 
tions of  the  prophets,  has  received  both  Jews  and  Gentiles,  and  united 
them  into  one  body.  (Ver.  8-13.) 
Part  TV —Personal     (15  :  14-16  :  23.) 

(1)  As  to  his  own  relations  and  feelings  toward  them.    (15  :  14-33.)    The  apostle 

declares  his  confidence  in  them.  (Ver.  14.)  He  justifies  the  freedom  with 
which  he  has  addressed  them.  (Ver.  15.)  This  he  does  on  the  ground  of 
his  office  as  the  apostle  of  the  Gentiles.  (Ver.  16-21.)  He  expresses  his 
hope  of  visiting  them  soon.  (Ver.  22-29.)  He  asks  their  prayers  in  his 
behalf     (Ver.  30-33.) 

(2)  After  bespeaking  their  Christian  hospitality  and  kind  offices  for  Phebe,  a 

servant  of  the  church,  at  Cenchrea  (and  probably  the  bearer  of  the 
Epistle)  (16  :  1,  2),  he  sends  his  salutations  to  various  members  of  the 
church.     (Ver.  3-16.) 

(3)  He  warns  them  against  those  who  cause  divisions.     (Ver.  17-20.) 

(4)  He  adds  salutations  from  Christian  friends  who  were  with  him.    (Ver.  21-23.)  ' 
Part  V.  —  Conchmon.  (16:24-27.) 

(1)  Benediction.     (Ver.   24.)     (2.)  DoxoZo*;!/— embodying  a  brief  summarj'  of 
gospel  doctrine.     (Ver.  25-27.) 


PAUL'S  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS. 


)AUL,  a  servant  of  Jesus  Christ,  called  lo  be  an  apos' 
.   tie,  separated  unto  the  gospel  of  (jod. 


CHAPTER   I. 

Paul,  a  1  servant  of  Jesus  Christ,  called  lo  be  an 


1  Gr.  bondservant. 


Part  I.     (Ch.  1:  1-15.)     Introduction. 

(a)  Salutatory.  (Ver.  1-7.) 

1.  Paul.  It  was  the  custom  of  the  ancients 
to  phice  the  name  of  the  writer  of  a  letter  at 
the  beginning  of  the  letter  instead  of  at  the 
end.  We  have  many  examples  of  this  in 
the  Greek  and  Latin  classics.  [With  this 
name,  a  verb  "  writes"  (ypa<f>ei.),  or  "greeting" 
(xat><if)  or,  in  full,  gives  greeting,  as  in  2  John 
10, 11)  Rev.  Ver.  (A«'y«c  xaipeii'),  is  properly  un- 
derstood ;  but  in  all  the  epistles  of  the  New 
Testament,  save  that  of  James,  the  name  of 
the  writer,  when  expressed  in  the  salutation, 
stands  independently.  "Here  the  substance 
of  the  verb  (x<">»ii')  appears  in  the  following 
grace  to  you,  etc.,  as  an  independent  sentence, 
and  invocation  of  blessing  of  richer  fullness." 


their  own  countrymen  by  their  Hebrew  name, 
and  among  foreigners  by  a  different  name; 
and  tile  fact  that  the  apostle  was  born  in  a 
foreign  city,  and  inherited  the  rights  of  a 
Roman  citizen  (Acts 22:  2r),  makes  it  probable 
that  both  names  belonged  to  him  from  early 
life.  And  on  this  supposition,  the  change 
from  the  Hebrew  to  the  Roman  name  is  ap- 
priately  made  by  Luke  just  at  the  point  where 
he  begins  directly  to  speak  of  Paul's  labors  in 
his  chosen  and  recognized  sphere  as  the  "apos- 
tle of  the  Gentiles."  Compare  Dr.  Hackett's 
note  on  Acts  13  :  19. 

[In  the  Talmud,  Paul,  as  certain  Jewish 
writers  affirm,  is  called  "Acher"— that  is, 
"Another"  ;  and  one  modern  rabbi  supposes 
he  was  so  called  because  he  went  under  an 


(Philippi.)      On  the  New  Testament   use  of  [assumed  name,  or  was  virtually  anonymous, 

Perliaps  the  name  was  given  to  him  as  one 
belonging  to  another  and  different  faith,  and 
was  thus  nearly  equivalent  to  heterodox  or 
heretic.  Or  possibly  it  was  applied  to  Paul 
even  more  contemptuously,  just  as  the  ancient 
rabbis,  unwilling  to  speak  the  name  pig, 
called  it  "the  other  thing."  If  any  one 
wishes  to  see  how  far  modern  rationalistic 
Judaism  can  caricature  the  noblest  of  lives 
and  of  characters,  let  him  look  at  the  account 
given  of  Paul,  and  other  apostles  of  Jesus 
Christ,  in  the  "Origin  of  Christianity,"  and 
in  the  "History  of  the  Hebrews'  Second 
Commonwealth,"  by  Dr.  Isaac  M.  Wise. 
We  may  add  that  this  "Acher,"  according 
to  the  Talmud,  was  a  married  man,  and  that 
he  left  daughters.] 

A  servant  of  Jesus  Christ.  The  word 
here  translated  'servant'  is  the  same  that  is 
properly  translated  slave  in  classic  Greek.  Its 
use  here  is  indicative  of  humility,  but  not  of 
servility.  The  more  absolutely  submissive  a 
man  is  to  Jesus  Christ,  the  more  surely  is  lie 
free  from  bondage  to  man.  "To  serve  God  is 
true  liberty,"   says  Augustine.     So  also  for 

21 


this  verb,  see  ver.  7.]  The  writer  of  th 
Ejiistle  is  called  by  his  Hebrew  name,  Saul, 
until  after  his  conversion.  The  name  Paul  is 
found  about  one  hundred  and  sixty  times  in 
the  New  Testament — about  one  hundred  and 
thirty  times  in  the  Acts,  nearlj-  thirty  timee 
in  his  own  epistles,  including  the  salutation  in 
all  the  thirteen,  and  once  it  is  mentioned  by 
Peter.  (iPcterS:  15.)  It  is  first  introduced  at 
Acts  13:  9,  and  the  name  Saul,  which  has 
been  used  more  than  twenty  times  before,  is 
never  used  afterward,  except  in  four  or  five 
l^laces,  where  the  apostle  recounts  the  words 
addressed  to  him  by  Jesus,  and  by  Ananias, 
at  the  time  of  his  conversion.  (Acts  22 :  7, 13 ; 
26:  M.)  Some  have  supposed  that  the  name 
Paul  was  assumed  by  the  apostle  out  of  respect 
to  Sergius  Paulus.  But  though  the  change 
from  Saul  to  Paul  is  first  mentioned  in  con- 
nection with  the  account  of  the  conversion  of 
this  Roman  proconsul,  it  is  more  probable 
that  both  names  were  borne  by  him  from  the 
beginning.  It  was  no  uncommon  thing  in 
that  age  for  Jews,  especially  such  as  associated 
much  with  foreigners,  to  be  known  among 


22 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  I 


substance  says  the  Scripture.  See  Ps.  116 :  16 ; 
119:  45;  John  8:  36.'  Paul  gives  himself  this 
title  only  here,  and,  in  connection  with  Timo- 
thy, in  Phil.  1 :  1.  Elsewhere  in  the  beginning 
of  his  epistles  he  styles  himself  simply  an 
apostle  of  Jesus  Christ. 

The  use  of  the  two  names  'Jesus  Christ'  is 
connected  with  some  important  peculiarities 
in  the  original  manuscripts  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. In  the  first  place,  one  of  the  names  is 
often  omitted  in  the  best  manuscripts,  where 
our  English  version  has  them  both.  In  the 
second  place,  the  order  of  the  two  names  is 
often  inverted.  This  inversion  is  often  repre- 
sented in  the  English  ;  always,  indeed,  where 
the  Greek  manuscripts  are  uniform  ;  but  they 
often  diifer  among  themselves.  The  omissions 
and  inversions  consitute  a  large  number  of  the 
so-called  "various  readings  "  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament manuscripts.  Those  are  obviously  of 
very  little  importance.  Other  peculiarities  in 
the  use  of  the  two  are  more  important.  Among 
these  are  the  various  proportions  in  which  the 
two  are  used  in  different  parts  of  the  New 
Testament.  In  the  gospels  the  name  Jesus  is 
used  between  five  hundred  and  six  hundred 
times.  The  word  Christ  is  used  in  the  gospels 
about  fifty  times  in  connection  with  the  name 
Jesus,  and  about  as  many  times  by  itself.  It  is 
usually  accompanied  by  the  article  in  Greek, 
and  is  manifestly  used  as  a  descriptive  desig- 
nation, and  not  as  a  simple  proper  name. 
Jesus,  the  Christ,  the  Anointed,  the  Messiah— 
the  two  latter  words  having  the  same  mean- 
ing, in  English  and  Hebrew,  that  the  former 
has  in  Greek.  In  the  Acts  our  Saviour  is 
commonly  called  simply  Jesus   (about  fifty 


times),  the  word  Christ  being  added  about 
fifteen  times,  and  this  last  word  being  found 
by  itself  scarcely  more  than  a  half  a  dozen 
times.  In  the  epistles,  the  two  words  are 
found  together  nearly  two  hundred  times; 
the  name  Jesus  alone  less  than  twenty  times; 
but  the  word  Christ,  now  in  the  lapse  of 
time  come  to  be  used,  according  to  a  general 
law  of  language,  no  longer  as  a  descriptive 
appellation,  but  simply  as  a  proper  name,  is 
found  by  itself  about  two  hundred  and  thirty 
times.  Such  a  progress  in  the  use  of  the  word 
from  a  descriptive  to  a  proper  name,  can  only 
be  accounted  for  by  the  fact  that  the  epistles 
were  written  at  a  later  date  than  the  gospels, 
or,  at  least,  as  representing  a  later  date  in  the 
use  of  language ;  for  the  gospels  represent  a 
use  of  language  from  thirty  to  fifty  years 
earlier  than  their  composition.  On  this  basis 
— namely,  that  the  appellation  Christ,  from  be- 
ing always  a  descriptive  designation  in  the  gos- 
pels, has  come  to  be  commonly  a  proper  name 
in  the  epistles — an  ingenious  refutation  of  Dr. 
David  F.  Strauss'  "Life  of  Christ"  has  been 
published  by  Dr.  O.  T.  Dobbin.  Dr.  Strauss 
assumed  that  the  epistles  were  written  before 
the  gospels  assumed  their  present  form  [so 
Dr.  Weiss  in  his  "  Biblical  Theology  "],  and 
this  assumption  is  a  fundamental  principle  of 
his  whole  mythical  theory  of  the  origin  of  the 
gospels.  Dr.  Dobbin's  work  is  entitled  "Ten- 
tamen  Anti-Straussianum  :  the  Antiquity  of 
the  Gospels  asserted  on  Philological  Grounds 
in  Refutation  of  the  Mythic  Scheme  of  Dr. 
David  Frederick  Strauss:  an  Argument." 
London,  1845,  8vo,  pp.  113.  Of  this  work 
Allibone,  in  his   "Dictionary  of  Authors," 


1  Many  writers  designate  Paul  as  "  the  slave  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  but  as  this  term  carries  with  it  the 
idea  of  enforced  and  degrading  bondage  (similarly  to 
the  Greek,  a.v&pa.Tro&ov) ,  it  is  better  to  employ  the  word 
found  in  the  margin  of  the  Revised  Version— namely, 
bondservant.  As  in  the  Old  Testament,  the  title, 
"  servant  of  Jehovah,"  is  generally  applied  to  officially 
distinguished  personages,  so  it  is  thought  by  some  that 
in  the  New  Testament  the  "  servant  of  Christ"  is  one 
who  is  officially  appointed  to  some  special  service.  It 
is  evident,  however,  that  in  Paul's  estimation  all  true 
Christians  are  servants  of  the  Lord  .Tesus.  (Rom. 
14 :  18  ;  1  Cor.  7 :  22 ;  Eph.  6:6;  Col.  3 :  24.)  The  Chris- 
tian service  of  Paul,  faith  in  Chri.st  and  love  for 
him  as  a  Saviour,  was  ever  accompanied  with  obedi- 
ence to  him  as  Lord.  (See,  for  example,  his  beginning 
and  ending  of  this  Ei)istle  with  the  words :  obedience 
of  faith.)    And  how    great  was  the  change  from  his 


being  a  raving  and  murderous  persecutor  of  Christians 
to  his  becoming  a  willing  bondservant  of  Jesus  Christ. 
For  some  twenty  years  the  apostle  had  now  been  en- 
gaged in  Christ's  service — a  service  which  had  brought 
him  much  of  trial  and  suffering.  Even  at  the  com- 
mencement of  it  his  divine  Master  had  to  announce  to 
him  how  many  things  he  must  suffer  for  his  name's 
sake.  (Acts  9:  16.)  He  had  at  this  time  undergone  all 
those  trials  and  afflictions  which  are  enumerated  in 
2  Cor.  11 :  24-33,  that  "  Iliad  of  Woes."  At  the  time  of 
writing  this  Epistle  he  was  bearing  in  his  body  the 
deep  brand-marks  of  his  service  to  Christ  (Gal.  6:  17), 
and  soon  after  this,  and  for  many  years,  he  was  to  be 
"  a  prisoner  of  Christ  Jesus,"  bound  with  chains,  not  to 
a  granite  wall,  where  he  might  have  some  privacy  and 
be  alone  with  God,  but  to  some,  perhaps,  rough  and  un- 
feeling Roman  soldier— an  intolerable  bondage.— (F.) 


Ch.  I.] 


ROMANS. 


23 


vol.  I,  p.  607,  quotes  the  following  opinions  : 
"  A  work  in  no  common  degree  acute,  learned, 
eloquent,  and — what  is  rarer  still  in  a  region 
so  often  traversed— original."  "Complete, 
conclusive,  and  unanswerable."  "It  leaves 
Dr.  Strauss  without  a  loophole  whereby  to 
escape,  and  establishes  most  unanswerably 
the  antiquity  of  the  gospels." 

[The  titles  which  Paul  gives  himself  in  his 
several  salutations  are  quite  varied.  In  1  and 
2  Thessalonians  we  have  simply  "Paul";  in 
Philemon,  "a  prisoner  of  Jesus  Christ"  ;  in 
Philippians,  he  calls  himself  and  Timotheus 
"servants  of  Jesus  Christ"  ;  in  Titus,  "a  ser- 
vant of  God  and  an  apostle  of  Jesus  Christ"  ; 
in  1  Corinthians,  "called  an  apostle  of  Jesus 
Christ,  through  the  will  of  God"  ;  in  2  Corin- 
thians, Ephesians,  Colossians,  2Timoth3',  "an 
apostle  of  Jesus  Christ,  by  the  will  of  God"  ; 
in  1  Timothy,  "an  apostleofCiirist  Jesus  by  the 
commandment  of  God  our  Saviour  and  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  which  is  our  hope"  ;  andinGala- 
tians, "  an  apostle,  not  of  men,  neither  bj-  man, 
but  by  Jesus  Christ,  and  God  the  Father."  An 
interesting  paper.  Bishop  Eilicott  says,  might 
be  written  on  these  peculiarities  of  designa- 
tion. In  2  Corinthians,  Philippians,  Colos- 
sians and  Piiilemon,  Timothy  is  associated  with 
Paul  in  the  greetings;  in  1  and  2  Thessalo- 
nians, Silvanus  and  Timothy;  in  1  Corin- 
thians, Sosthenes;  and  in  Galatians,  "all  the 
brethren  who  are  with  me."  Though  Timo- 
thy was  present  when  Paul  wrote  to  the 
Romans,  yet  he  only  sends  his  salutation  at 
the  end  of  the  Epistle.]  Called  to  be  an 
apostle.  The  former  title  is  more  general ; 
this  more  specific  and  official.  The  words  'to 
be,'  supplied  by  the  translators,  might  well 
be  omitted,  as  they  are  in  many  recent  ver- 
sions. [There  is  some  force,  however,  in  what 
the  "Five  Clergymen"  say,  in  their  revised 
translation  of  the  Romans,  that,  " 'called  an 
apostle'  is  too  like  'named  an  apostle';  a 
called  apostle  seems  to  indicate  that  there  are 
some  apostles  not  called."  "We  think  the 
Common  Version  here  cannot  be  bettered.] 
Apostles  are  special  officers  in  the  Christian 
Church,  whose  principal  functions  are  to  be 
eye-witnesses   of  the   resurrection  of   Christ 

(Luke  24:    4S ;    Acts  1:    21,   22;    !    Cor.  9:    l),      authorita- 
tive teachers  of  his  doctrines  and  commands 

(johnl6;13;  ICnr.  U:S7:  2  reter3:2),    foUndcrS   of    his 

churches  under  him  the  Supreme  Founder 


(Matt.  16:  18;    1   Cor.  3:    10;    Kph.  2:    20;    Kev,  21 ;  14),    and 

possessors  and  dispensers  of  miraculous  gifts. 

(Matt.  10:  8;  Acts  8:  14-17;  19:  6.)       And      In      Order   tO 

exercise  these  functions  legitimately,  one  must 
have  a  special  and   direct  call  from  Christ. 
He  must  be  a  called  apostle.     "The  sudden 
call  of  the  persecuting  Saul  to  the  apostleship 
of  the  Gentiles  corresponds  to  the  sudden  call 
of  the   Gentiles  to  Christianity,  just  as  the 
gradual    instruction  of  the   Jewish  apostles 
accords  with  the  long  training  of  the  Jewish 
nation  for  the  gospel."     (SchatF.)     [The  term 
apostle  (occurring  seventy-nine  times  in  the 
New  Testament,  chiefly  in    the   writings   of 
Luke  and  Paul)  literally  signifies  one  that  is 
sent,  and  is  used  in  its  simple  unofficial  sense 
in  2  Cor.  8:  23,  Phil.  2:  25  of  the  "messen- 
gers "  of  the  churches.     It  seems  to  be  applied 
in  an  official  sense  to  others  than  tlie  twelve 
(1  Cor.  15:7),  Certainly  to   Barnabas,  though  as 
a  companion  of  Paul   (ActriU;4,  u);  to  James, 
the  Lord's  brother  (Gai.  i:i9),  who  was  prob- 
ably not  one  of  the  twelve  (see  Bishop  Light- 
foot's  discussion  of  "  The  Name  and  Office  of 
an  Apostle,"  in  his  "Commentary  on  Gala- 
tians," pp.  92-100);  perhaps  to  Sylvanus  and 
Timothj',  as  associated  with  Paul  (iThess.^:  6), 
and  to  Andronicus  and  Junias,  as  some  think. 
(Rom.  16:  7.)     In    2  Cor.   11:   6;    12:    11,   Paul 
speaks  ironically  of  certain  literally  "  super- 
eminent  apostles,"   and  in  2  Cor.    11  :  13  of 
"false  apostles."     In  the  case  of  Paul  the 
term  is  used,  as  Alford   says,  "in  its  higher 
and  peculiar  meaning  in  which  the  Twelve 
bore  the  title."     Like  them,  he  had  seen  the 
risen   Jesus   (icor. 9:i),   and  had  been  called 
more  directly  than  Matthias  was  by  the  Lord 
himself.     Thecal!  to  the  apostleship,  however, 
is  generally  in  Paul's  writings  represented  as 
proceeding  from  God  the  Father  (Rom.  15 :  15 :  i 
Cor.  15: 10;  Eph.  3:  2),    through    the     Lord   Jesus. 
(Rom.  1 :  5.)  In  Gal.  1 : 1  he  received  it  "  through 
Jesus    Christ    and    God    the   Father."     Our 
Saviour,  in  Matt.  22:  14,  makes  a  wide  dis- 
tinction between  called  (invited)  and  chosen 
(kAtjtoi  and  ticAeicToi) ;  but  in  Paul's  case  the  call- 
ing was  effectual,  its  idea  being  akin,  as  De 
Wette  suggests,  to  that  of  election.     The  call- 
ing, considered  as  distinct  from  the  choice,  took 
place  in  time,   while  the    choice   was    from 
eternity.     Compare  Gal.    1:  15;    2  Thess.  2: 
13,  14.     The  apostle  was  not  called  to  fill  the 
place  of  Judas,  to  which  Matthias  had  been 


24 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  I. 


2  (Which  he  had  promised  afore  by  his  prophets  in 
the  holy  Scriptures.) 


2  apostle,  separated  unto  the  gospel  of  God,  which  he 
promised  afore  i  through  his  prophets  iu  the  holy 


1  Or,  by. 


mistakenly  elected,  nor  to  fill  the  place  of 
James,  John's  brother,  who  had  been  killed 
with  the  sword.  His  call  was  a  special  one, 
and  wholly  independent  of  that  of  the  twelve. 
Their  apostolate  had  Palestine  and  the  twelve 
tribes  of  the  Dispersion  mainly  in  view.  Paul 
was  chosen  to  be  the  apostle  to  the  Gentiles. 
Our  Saviour,  in  Acts  9:  15,  calls  him  "a  vessel 
of  election,"  (Revised  Version,  margin),  and 
so  he  speaks  of  himself  as  called  of  God  to 
the  apostleship.  In  thus  ascribing  his  aposto- 
hite,  not  to  his  ov/n  choice  or  merits,  but  to  the 
power  and  will  of  God,  he,  at  the  very  outset, 
strikes,  as  it  were,  the  keynote  of  the  whole 
Epistle,  Converted  and  called  in  the  manner 
he  was,  he  could  not  but  ascribe  all  his  salva- 
tion to  the  good  pleasure  and  sovereign  grace 
of  God.  With  his  experience  "he  knew  not 
how,"  as  01shausensa3^s,  "  to  preach  anything 
save  the  grace  of  God  in  Christ."  To  be  an 
"  Arminian  "  or  to  talk  like  an  "  Arpiinian  " 
was  for  him  an  utter  impossibility.] 

Separated  unto  the  gospel  of  God. 
Compare  Acts  9:  15:  Gal.  1:  15.  The  pur- 
pose for  which  Paul  was  thus  set  apart  was 
the  formal  and  official  announcement  to  men 
of  God's  glad  tidings.  ["  Set  apart  to  preach 
the  gospel."  (Noyes.)  Verbs  derived  from 
horos  (opoi),  a  boundary  or  line  of  separation, 
are  of  frequent  use  in  the  New  Testament. 
'  Of  God'  is  not  the  genitive  objective,  gospel 
concerning  God,  but  subjective — the  gospel  of 
which  God  is  the  author  or  giver.  (De  Wette. ) 
Both  nouns  are  destitute  of  the  article.  The 
first,  or  governing  noun,  generally  accompa- 
nied with  the  article,  is  made  sufficiently 
definite  by  the  genitive  or  noun  which  follows 
— (rorf's  (one  and  only)  Gospel;  and  gramma- 
rians tell  us  where  one  noun  is  without  the 
article  the  other  frequently  is  so,  "on  the 
principle  of  correlation."  Similar  examples 
of  nouns  without  the  article  are  found  in  ver. 
16,  17,  18,  and  elsewhere.  The  above  cited 
passages  in  Acts  and  Galatians  show  us  that 
Paul  was  separated  unto  the  gospel  both  before 
and  after  his  conversion.  Perhaps  the  setting 
apart  of  which  he  here  speaks  occurred  at 
the  time  of  his  conversion,  when  the  Lord 
virtually  appointed  him  to  b^  an  apostle  to 
the  Gentiles  in  the  words,  "Unto  whom  I 


send  thee."  (Aotsae;  i7;ai30  22 :  21.)  As  the  term 
Pharisee  denotes  one  who  is  separated  or  set 
apart,  it  may  be,  from  the  mass  of  men  to  the 
special  keeping  of  the  law  and  the  traditions, 
so  some  have  thought  that  Paul  would  here 
represent  himself,  by  way  of  contrast,  as  sepa- 
rated unto  the  gospel;  but  there  is  no  evidence 
that  he  here  alludes  to  this  matter.  This 
'gospel  of  God'  (see  15:  16;  1  Thess.  2:  2, 
8,  9;  1  Peter,  4:  17)  is  elswhere  called   "the 

gospel  of  Christ"  (IS:  19;  Gal.  l:  7:  Phil.  1 :  27);  "  the 

gospel  of  the  kingdom"  CMau.4:23);  "the 
gospel  of  the  grace  of  God."  (Acts,  20:  24) ; 
"the  gospel  of  peace"  (Kpb. 6:  15)  ;  and  "the 
gospel  of  your  salvation."  (Eph.  i:i3.)  Twice 
in  this  Epistle  and  once  elsewhere,  the  apostle 
speaks  of  it  as  "my  gospel."] 

2.  Which  he  had  promised  afore  by  his 
prophets.  ["Not  only  the  four  great  and 
twelve  minor  prophets  are  meant,  nor  the 
order  of  prophets  in  general,  commencing 
with  Samuel  (Acts 3: 24),  but  all  men  by  whom 
prophecies  concerning  Christ  are  found  re- 
corded in  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures. 
Even  Moses  and  David  belong  to  these 
prophets."  (Philippi.)  See  Acts  28:  23; 
Luke  24:  27,  44.  Alford  thinks  the  expres- 
sion is  "used  in  the  strictest  sense.  Moses 
gave  the  law;  the  prophets  proclaimed  the 
gospel."  The  verb  employed  here  signifies 
to  promise  aforehand  rather  than  to  pre- 
announce,  though  some,  as  Stuart  and  Phil- 
ippi, decide  for  this  latter.]  This  is  one  of  the 
many  passages  which  show  the  intimate  con- 
nection between  the  Old  Testament  and  the 
New.  The  gospel  is  in  the  Old  Testament; 
according  to  the  pithy  saying  of  Augustine, 
"the  New  Testament  is  veiled  in  the  Old; 
the  Old  Testament  is  unveiled  in  the  New." 
'^ Novum  Testamentmn  in  Vetere  latet ;  Vetiis 
TestamenUim  in  Novo  patet."  For  specimens 
of  passages  of  similar  import,  compare  Acts 
10:  43;  26:  22,  23;  1  Peter  1:  10,  11.  It  was 
especially  important  to  keep  this  connection 
before  the  minds  of  the  Jewish  converts, 
"lest,"  as  Chrysostom  remarks,  "any  one 
should  think  he  was  introducing  some  novel 
doctrine."  In  the  holy  Scriptures.  The 
epithet  'holy'  is  ascribed  to  the  Scriptures 
only   here   and  2  Tim.   3:   15.     [The   literal 


Ch.  I.] 


ROMANS. 


25 


3  Concerning  his  Son  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,  which 
was  made  of  the  seed  of  L>avid  according  to  the  flesli ; 


3  scriptures,  concerning  his  Son,  who  was  born  of 

4  the  seed  of  David  according  to  the  flesh,  who  was 


translation  of  the  latter  passage  is  sacred 
writings'^  In  16:  26  and  Matt.  26:  56,  we 
have  "the  Scriptures  of  the  prophets,"  or 
"^Ae  prophetic  Scriptures,"  as  the  Greek 
reads,  and  in  Matt.  26:  56,  "the  Scriptures  of 
the  prophets."  Elsewhere  the  word  trans- 
lated Scripture  is  used  without  any  qualifying 
adjective.  It  is  used  about  fifty  times  in  the 
New  Testament,  about  thirty  times  in  the 
singular,  and  twenty  in  the  plural,  always 
accompanied  in  the  Greek  text  by  the  definite 
article,  except  in  three  or  four  places,  where 
it  is  made  definite  by  some  qualifying  adjec- 
tive or  descriptive  phrase,  as  in  John  19:  37; 
Rom.  16:  26;  2  Tim.  3:  16;  2  Peter  1:  20. 
[Here  the  noun  has  no  article,  but  is  suffi- 
ciently defined  by  the  adjective  'holy'; 
hence,  "the  holy  Scriptures."  (De  Wette.) 
By  Meyer's  rendering:  "In  holy  writings" 
— that  is,  in  such  writings  as  are  holy  (as  espe- 
ciallj'  the  prophetic),  the  kind  of  Scriptures 
is  specially  characterized.  Regarded  in  the 
light  of  a  proper  name,  it  may  either  retain 
or  dispense  with  the  article,  just  as  we  speak 
of  Scripture  or  the  Scripture.]  Whether  in 
the  singular  or  in  the  plural,  whether  with  the 
article  or  without,  it  is  never  used  in  the  New 
Testament  of  any  writings  but  those  which 
were  recognized  by  the  Jews  as  inspired.  It 
is  directly  applied,  of  course,  only  to  the  Old 
Testament  writings;  but  indirectly  and  co)i- 
structively  it  may  be  applied  to  the  New. 

3.  Concerning  his  Son.  [Some  commen- 
tators quite  naturally  join  this  phrase  to  gospel 
in  ver.  1,  making  ver.  2  parenthetical.  The 
greater  number,  we  think,  connect  it  with  the 
verb  'promised.'  The  idea  is  essentially  the 
same  in  either  case.  "The  personal  object  of 
the  ancient  promises  is  the  Son  of  God." 
(Hodge.)  The  name  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord 
which  follows  the  word  '  Son  '  in  our  Common 
Version,  properly  belongs  at  the  end  of  ver. 
4.  We  may  notice  here  how  early  and  how 
often  in  the  apostle's  letters  the  words  '  Christ ' 
and  'gospel'  are  mentioned.  He  could  not 
write  long,  we  might  almost  say,  on  any  sub- 
ject, without  referring  to  that  "name  which 
is  above  every  name."  An  illustration  of 
this  is  found  in  2  Cor.  8:  9-15,  where,  in  in- 
culcating the  duty  or  "grace"  of  giving,  he 
must  refer  to  the  example  of  him  who  ' '  though 


he  was  rich,  yet  for  your  sakes  became  poor," 
and  in  closing  the  discussion  of  that  topic 
(9:  15),  he  is  led  by  the  thought  of  the  pre- 
ciousness  of  our  poor  earthly  gifts,  to  lift  his 
heart  in  gratitude  to  God  for  "his  unspeaka- 
ble gift,"  the  gift  of  "his  own  Son."  (Rom.  8:32.) 

See  Ellicott's  "Notes  on  Ephesians,  '  es- 
pecially chapter  2,  verse  7,  in  regard  to  Paul's 
frequent  repetition  of  this  "only  name."  In 
this  respect  Paul  difiPers  widely  from  James, 
the  Lord's  brother,  who,  thougii  calling  him- 
self "a  servant  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  yet 
mentions  this  name  expressly  but  twice  in  his 
epistle,  and  "the  gospel"  not  once.  Both 
writers  were  inspired  of  God,  but  the  men 
were  different,  or  the  bent  of  their  minds 
was  difl'erent.  Paul  being  himself  no  advocate 
of  a  "dead  faith,"  would  not,  we  suppose, 
object  to  a  single  sentiment  in  James,  but 
would  heartily  endorse  each  one.  Yet  Paul, 
if  we  may  express  our  feelings  in  the  language 
of  hyperbole,  could  no  more  write  the  Epistle 
of  James,  than  he  could  create  a  W(jrld.] 

Which  Avas  made.  The  distinction  be- 
tween 'was'  and  'was  made'  {yivoy-an,  to 
become)  is  finely  illustrated  by  comparing 
John  1:  1,  2,  with  John  1:  14.  The  expres- 
sion 'was  made'  here  implies  that  his  human 
nature  began  to  be,  when  he  was  "  made  of  a 
woman."  (Gai.4:i.)  The  phrase  according 
to  the  flesh  does  not  mean  that  his  human 
nature  was  limited  to  his  flesh — that  is,  to  his 
body;  but  the  expression  is  used  here,  as  in 
John  1:  14,  and  often  elsewhere,  to  signify 
the  whole  human  nature,  "body,  soul,  and 
spirit,"  of  which  the  outward,  visible  taber- 
nacle of  the  flesh  is  the  concrete  representa- 
tion to  our  senses.  (Alford.)  [On  the  limit- 
ing phrase,  'according  to  the  flesh,'  Dr. 
Hodge  thus  remarks:  "It  obviously  implies 
the  superhuman  character  of  Jesus.  Were 
he  a  mere  man,  it  had  been  enough  to  say 
that  he  was  of  the  seed  of  David ;  but  as  he  is 
more  than  man,  it  was  necessary  to  limit  his 
descent  from  David  to  his  human  nature." 
The  same  phrase  is  used  in  4:  1,  in  reference 
to  Abraham,  where  (connected  with  the  verb 
hath  found)  it  denotes,  according  to  Godet, 
"human  activitj'  in  its  state  of  isolation  from 
the  influence  of  God,"  and  is  probably  equiva- 
lent to  "his  own  labor,"  or  "from  works,"  of 


26 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  I. 


ver.  2.  It  is  used  of  the  relation  wliich  Paul 
sustained  to  the  Jews  (s:  3)  when  he  calls  them 
his  kinsmen  by  race  or  nationality.  Again, 
in  8:  4  we  read  of  those  who  walk  according 
to  the  flesh  and  according  to  the  spirit,  where 
'according  to  the  flesh'  (Kara  <rdpica)  seems 
nearly  equivalent  to  the  "law  of  sin  in  the 
members."  But  none  of  these  senses  is  ap- 
plicable to  the  phrase  '  according  to  the  flesh  ' 
when  used  in  the  case  of  Christ,  which  is  to 
be  interpreted  rather  in  the  light  of  such  ex- 
pressions as:  "The  word  became  flesh"'; 
"was  manifested  in  the  flesh";  "has  come 
in  the  flesh"  ;  "made  in  the  likeness  of  men  "  ; 
"made  of  a  woman,"  etc.  See  John  1:  14; 
1  Tim.  3 :  16 ;  1  John  4:2;  Phil.  2:7;  Gal. 
4:  4.] 

The  seed  of  David,  rather  than  of  Abra- 
ham, as  an  intimation  of  his  kingly  char- 
acter, and  in  allusion  to  such  passages  in 
the  Old  Testament  as  Ps.  89.  Compare  Matt. 
1 :  1 ;  2  Ti  m.  2 :  8.  [Meyer  supposes  that  Jesus" 
descent  from  the  seed  of  David  must  be  traced 
through  the  paternal  or  male  line,  and  hence, 
thougli  holding  that  Jesus  was  the  Son  of  God 
andtliat  Paul's  Son  of  God  "is  conceived  in  a 
metaphysical  sense,  as  he  who  had  proceeded 
out  of  the  essence  of  the  father,  like  him  in 
substance,"  he  at  the  same  time  denies  to  the 
Saviour  a  virgin  birth,  giving  no  credence  to 
the  later  embellished  accounts  (as  he  would 
regard  them)  in  Matthew  and  Luke  which 
assert  it,  and  aflSrms  that  Paul  nowhere,  not 
even  in  Rom.  8:  ?>;  Gal.  4:  4,  indicates  the 


view  of  a  supernatural  generation  of  the 
bodily  nature  of  Jesus.  But  if  Mary  sprang 
from  the  "seed  of  David,"  it  is  senseless  to 
deny  that  Jesus  was  born  of  David's  seed.^ 
Besides,  as  Philippi  says:  "To  concede  to  the 
apostle  the  conception  of  the  metaphysical 
divine  Sonship  and  to  deny  to  him  faith  in  the 
birth  of  God's  Son  of  the  virgin,  is  to  impute 
to  him  a  conception  dogmatically  inconceiva- 
ble." Godet  thus  remarks  on  this  subject: 
"But  would  this  supposition  (of  an  unmiracu- 
lous  birth)  be  consistent,  on  the  one  hand, 
with  the  idea  which  the  apostle  forms  of  Jesus' 
absolute  ]io]\ness;  on  the  other,  with  his  doc- 
trine of  the  transmission  of  sin  to  the  whole 
human  race?  He  speaks  of  Jesus  as  'sent  in 
the  likeness  of  sinful  flesli,'  as  one  'who  knew 
no  sin,'  and  ascribes  to  him  the  part  of  an 
expiatory  victim,  which  excludes  the  barest 
idea  of  a  minimum  of  sin.  And  yet  accord- 
ing to  him  all  Adam's  descendants  participate 
in  the  heritage  of  sin.  How  reconcile  these 
propositions,  if  his  view  is  that  Jesus  descends 
from  David  and  from  Adam,  absolutely  in 
the  same  sense  as  the  other  descendants  of 
Adam  or  David?  Paul  thus  necessarily  held 
the  miraculous  birth,  and  that  so  much  the 
more,  as  the  fact  is  conspicuously  related  in 
the  Gospel  of  Luke,  his  companion  in  work. 
A  contradiction  between  these  two  fellow- 
laborers  on  this  is  inadmissible. «  It  is  there- 
fore through  the  intervention  of  Mary  alone, 
that  Jesus,  according  to  Paul's  view,  descended 
from  David.     And  such  also  is  the  meaning 


1  Rabbi  Wise  (in  his  "  History  of  the  Hebrews'  Second 
Commonwealth,"  pp.  24.5,  258)  with  great  unwisdom 
makes  Jesus  deny  his  own  Davidian  descent  (Luke  20: 
41 ;  compare  Matt.  22:  42,  43),  in  the  very  gospels  which 
most  explicitly  assert  it!  That  Jesus  was  of  the  line 
of  David  is  a  fact  abundantly  atfirmed  by  himself  and 
his  apostles,  and  this  claim,  if  false,  should  have  been 
disproved  by  Paul's  own  teacher,  Gamaliel,  himself,  as 
the  rabbis  atfirm,  a  descendant  of  David,  aud  by  other 
Jews  of  that  age,  all  of  whom,  in  accordance  with  their 
sacred  Scriptures  (Ps.  89:  36;  132:  11,  12;  Jer.  23:  5), 
expected  their  promised  Messiah  to  be  of  the  seed  of 
David.  (Matt.  22:  42:  John?:  42.)  "  That  Jesus,"  says 
De  Wette,  on  Matt.  1 :  17,  "  was  actually  of  the  race 
of  David  is  plain  from  the  account  of  Hegesippus  in 
Eusebius'  '  Ecclesiastiacal  History,'  III,  20,  that  the 
grandsons  of  Judas,  his  brother,  were,  as  the  posterity 
of  David,  summoned  before  the  Emperor  Domitian." 
(See  further  in  Notes  to  Geikie's  "  Life  of  Christ,"  chap- 
ter VIII ;  also  Farrar's  "Early  Days  of  Christianity," 
'chapter  XI,  and  Broadus  on  "  Matthew,"  pp.  2, 6.)   The 


Jews  have  ceased  looking  for  a  Messiah,  yet  to  come  from 
the  lineage  of  David  and  from  the  tribe  of  Judah.  TTieir 
tribal  descent  is  noiv  lost  forever,  and  thus  no  future  (pre- 
tended) Messiah  from  among  the  Jews  can  prove  his 
descent  from  the  "house  and  family  of  David."  The 
Jews,  indeed,  make  one  exception  as  to  the  loss  of  their 
tribal  descent,  and  maintain  that  tribal  distinction  is 
still  preserved  by  the  descendants  of  Levi.  If  this  be 
so,  yet  God  has  taken  from  them  their  especial  duty, 
and  they  have  now  no  religious  rites  of  divine  appoint- 
ment to  perform. — (F.) 

2  Luke  was  Paul's  almost  constant  companion  for 
some  ten  or  twelve  years  (see  Prof  Bliss'  "  Commentary 
on  Luke,"  p.  10),  and  his  sole  faithful  attendant  during 
the  apostle's  last  days ;  "  only  Luke  is  with  me,"  2  Tim- 
4:  11.  Must  not  the  evangelist,  who  "  traced  the  course 
of  all  things  accurately  from  the  very  first,"  and  the 
writer  of  our  Epistle  have  often  conversed  on  all  the 
more  important  matters  relating  to  our  Lord's  earthly 
history?— (F.) 


Ch.  I.] 


ROMANS. 


27 


4  And  declared  to  be  the  Son  of  God  with  power,  ac- 
cording to  the  Spirit  of  holiness,  by  the  resurrection 
from  the  dead : 


1  declared  to  he  the  Son  of  God  ^  with  power,  accord- 
ing to  the  spirit  of  holiness,  by  the  resurrection  of  the 
5  dead ;  even  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,  through  whom  we 


1  Or.  determined i  Or,  in. 


of  the  genealogy  of  Jesus  in  Luke's  Gospel." 
See  also  Neanders  "Life  of  Christ,"  p.  19,  on 
our  Lord's  Davidian  descent,  and  p.  16,  on 
the  silence  of  John  and  of  Paul  in  regard  to 
the  miraculous  conception.] 

4.  Declared  —  literall^'^,  defined,  nearly 
equivalent  to  demonstrated,  and  contrasted 
with  'was  made,'  to  show  how  different  he 
really  was  from  whsit  he  seemed  to  he  to  the 
superficial  view  of  men.  [This  word,  "de- 
clared," occurring  in  seven  other  places  in 
the  New  Testament  (Luke  22:  22;  Acts  2;  23;  lo:  «: 
11: 29;  17: 26, 31;  Heb.  4:  7)  is  here,  in  the  view  of 
most  commentators,  equivalent  to  designated, 
or  instated;  Chalmers  saj's:  "determinately 
marked  out."  It  must  not  be  taken  in  the 
sense,  destined  to  becotne  som,ethlng  (Meyer 
against  Hofinann)  ;  for  Christ  was  the  Son  of 
God  before  the  foundation  of  the  world.  Tlie 
two  predicates — 'was  made,'  and  'was  de- 
clared'— both  refer  to  his  Son,  here  regarded 
as  the  entire  person  of  Jesus.  (DeWette. )] 
With  (literally,  in)  power.  This  qualifying 
clause  may  be  connected  directly  with  the 
immediately  preceding  words,  and  the  sense 
will  then  be,  defined  by  his  resurrection  to  be 
the  Son  of  God  with  power,  in  contrast  with 
his  seeming  weakness  as  a  mere  man.  So 
Stuart,  [Schaflf,  Philippi,  and  Dorner  also, 
who  says  that  "  previously,  therefore,  he  was 
not  Son  of  God  in  power,  although  he  was 
Son."]  Or  the  words  may  be  connected  with 
the  word  '  declared,'  and  so  they  would  indi- 
cate the  strength  of  the  proof  of  his  divine 
Sonship — "declared  mightily,"  as  the  Ge- 
nevan Version  has  it.  This  interpretation 
seems,  from  Acts  4:  33,  to  be  admissible,  in 
spite  of  the  assertion  of  Stuart,  that  this  word 
is  used  only  of  actual  power,  and  not  of  logical 
force.  In  the  passages  referred  to  above,  it 
seems  to  be  used  in  a  similar  sense  with  our 


word  power,  in  such  expressions  as  a  powerful 
argument,  powerful  conviction,  etc.  So  Al- 
ford,  Meyer,  [Olshausen,  DeWette,  Godet, 
Hodge.  For  the  adverbial  use  of  this  word, 
see  Col.  1:  29;  2  Thess.  1:  11.]  According 
to  the  Spirit  of  holiness.  The  reference 
here  is  not  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  a  divine 
person,  distinct  from  the  Son  [Wordsworth 
and  Forbes],  but  to  Christ  himself,  in  his 
spiritual,  holy,  divine  nature,  as  distinguished 
from  his  lower  nature,  as  the  seed  of  David. 
"The  divine  side  of  Christ's  nature,  with  the 
essential  characteristic  of  holiness."  (Lange.) 
See  a  similar  use  of  the  word  'spirit'  [as  con- 
trasted with  the  'flesh'  of  Christ]  in  1  Tim. 
3:  16;  1  Peter  3:  18.     Compare  John  4:  24. 

[This    word    'holiness'    (ayioavvr],    not    ayiaano^, 

sanctification)  occurs  also  in  2  Cor.  7:  1;  1 
Thess.  3:  13,  and  is  here  the  "genitive  of 
characterizing  quality  " — i.  e.,  it  characterizes 
the  spirit  of  Christ.  De  Wette  defines  this 
spirit  of  holiness  as  the  ''''  spiritrial  side  of  the 
life  of  Christ,  yet  with  the  attribute  of  holi- 
ness," etc.,  for  which  definition  Dr.  Schafl^  (in 
Lange,  as  above  quoted)  would  substitute  the 
divine  side  of  Christ's  pers(m  with  the  essential 
characteristic  of  holiness.  Prof.  Sliedd,  in 
his  "Commentary  on  Romans,"  says:  "The 
spirit  that  constituted  Christ's  rational  soul  in 
distinction  from  his  animal  soul  Avas  from  the 
seed  of  David;  but  the  pneuvin  (spirit)  here 
attributed  to  Christ  was  something  in  re- 
spect to  which  he  was  not  of  the  seed  of 
David."  Perhaps  we  can  do  no  better  than 
to  adopt  the  interpretation  of  Philippi,  to 
wit:  "  The  spirit  of  holiness  is  the  higher, 
heavenly,  divine  nature  of  Christ,  according 
to  which,  or  in  which,  he  is  the  Son  of  God."* 
In  reference  to  Paul's  use  of  these  correlative 
terms,  'according  to  the  flesh,'  'according  to 
the  spirit,'  Prof.  Jowett  thus  remarks:  "An- 


1  Godet,  however,  thinks  that  by  the  phrase,  'spirit 
of  hnlines.t,'  Paul  would  denote  the  "action  displayed  on 
Christ  by  the  Holy  Spirit  during  his  earthly  existence." 
And  Prof  Stuart  regards  the  expression,  'according  to 
the  Spirit,' etc.,  not  as  antithetic  to  the  phrase,  'ac- 
cnrdinsr  to  the  flesh,'  but  as  referring  to  his  dispensing 
the  Holy  Spirit  after  his  resurrection.  But  we  must  j 
regard  these  parallel  phrases  as  evidently  antithetic ;  I 


and,  as  Dr.  GifTord  observes,  necessarily  representing 
constituent  parts  of  Christ's  own  being.  Scripture 
thus  appears  to  give  two  principal  reasons  why  Jesus 
is  called  the  Son  of  God:  1,  because  of  his  miraculous 
conception;  2,  in  a  higher  sense,  because  of  his  holy 
spiritual  nature  in  his  pre-existing  state. — Prof.  W.  S. 
Tyler,  in  "  Bib.  Sac,"  October,  1865.— (F.) 


28 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  L 


tithesis  is  a  favorite  figure  in  the  writings  of 
St.  Paul,  almost  (may  we  not  say?)  the  form 
in  which  he  conceives  the  gospel  itself.  There 
are  times  before,  and  times  after,  a  first  Adam 
and  a  second  Adam,  the  law  and  faith,  the 
flesh  and  the  spirit,  the  old  man  and  the  new 
man,  death,  life,  burial,  resurrection;  the 
identity  and  difference  of  the  believer  and 
his  Lord.  '  AH  things  are  double,  one  against 
the  other.'  "] 

By  the  resurrection  from  the  dead. 
Christ's  resurrection  from  the  dead  was  a 
powerful  demonstration  of  his  divine  Son- 
ship.  In  reply  to  the  objection  that  Lazarus 
and  several  otliers  were  raised  from  the  dead, 
the  peculiar  circumstances  of  Christ's  resur- 
rection are  to  be  noted.  1.  His  death  and 
resurrection  were  predicted  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment (ps.  i6;  9-ii;uo:  1,4;  isa.  53:  7-12),  and  repeat- 
edly foretold  by  himself.  (Matt.  16:  21;  17: 
22,  23;  John  10:  17,  18,  and  in  more  than  a 
dozen  other  places. )  2.  Jesus  raised  himself 
from  the  dead.  (John  2:  19-22.)  1  3.  Jesus  rose, 
not  like  Lazarus,  to  a  second  term  of  mortal 
life,  but  to  die  no  more.  (Rom.  6:9.)  4.  Jesus' 
human  nature  was  glorified  after  his  resurrec- 
tion. (John  12 :  23,  u :  Acts  17 :  31.)  Thesc  peculiari- 
ties separate  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  widely 
from  all  former  instances  of  restoration  to  life. 
[A  very  literal  translation  of  this  phrase, 
which  does  not  elsewhere  occur,  would  be: 
out  of  resurrection  of  {i\iQ)  dead.  In  phrases 
similar  to  this  the  Greek  article  is  almost 
invariably  in  the  New  Testament  omitted 
from  the  word  dead.  The  preposition  («) 
denotes  the  "source  out  o/ which  convincing 
evidence  flows."  (Winer,  367. )  "We  should 
have  expected  here,  "by  his  (or  the)  resur- 
rection, from  the  dead."  Some  supply  this 
preposition  («  or  <l7ro)  as  in  the  example 
quoted  by  Bengel  from  Herodotus  (icao-TicTe? 
paflpif) ;  literallj',  rising  of  seats,  meaning,  of 
course,  rising  from  the  seats.  The  article  and 
preposition  seem  to  be  omitted  here  to  make 
the  idea  of  resurrection  as  general  as  possible, 
embracing  that  of  Christ  and  "of  others  as 
involved  in  his"  (R.  D.  C.  Robbins),  or  "that 
resurrection    of    which    Christ    is    the    first 


fruits."    (Principal  Sanday.)    Winer  regards 
the  expression,  the  resurrection  of  the  dead, 
as    taken    "absolutely   and    generically,    al- 
though consummated   only  in  a  single  indi- 
vidual."    Paul,  in  Eph.  1:  19,  20,  speaks  of 
the  resurrection  of  Christ  as  eflected  by  the 
"working   of   the   strength  of  the   might   of 
God" — that  is,   by  the  divine  omnipotence. 
The  meaning,  then,  of  the  clause  before  us  is, 
in  substance,  that  God,  by  his  omnipotence, 
instated  in  the  sight  of  angels  and  men  Jesus 
Christ,   as   (in    accordance   with    his   higher 
nature)  the  Son  of  God,  by  effecting  his  res- 
urrection from  the  dead.     What  accrued  to 
Christ  by  his  resurrection  was,  as  Meyer  says, 
"  not  the  full  reality  (.see  8:  3;  Gal.  4:  4),  but 
the  full  effi.cie7icy  of  the  Son  of  God,"  since  he 
was  now  raised  above  the  limitations  of  his 
kenosis,  or  self-emptying,  and  was  shown  to 
be   Lord  of  all.     Through  the   force  of  this 
potent  demonstration  of  his  divine  Sonship, 
even  a  'doubting  Thomas'  was  led  to  say  to 
Christ  and  of  him  :  '  My  Lord  and  my  God.' 
Of  the  resurrection  of   our  Lord   from  the 
dead,  Paul  had  an  assured  conviction,  and  he 
makes  the  fact  of  this  resurrection  not  only  a 
proof    of    Christ's   divine    Sonship,    but   the 
ground  of  his  own  salvation.     Hence,  the  im- 
portance which  in  his  view  the  resurrection 
of  Christ  has  in  our  Christian  faith  and  hope 
can  hardly  be  described  in  words.     See  1  Cor. 
15:  17.     In  Paul's  discourse  to  the  Athenians 
(Acts  17 :  3i),  he  affirms  that  God  hath  instated 
or  designated  the  man  Christ  Jesus  to  be  the 
Judge  of  the  world,  whereof  a  sufficient  as- 
surance unto  all  men  is  the   fact  that  "God 
hath  raised   him  from  the  dead."     The   full 
name,  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,  on  which  the 
apostle  loves  to  dwell,  is  here  in  apposition 
with  the  preceding  'Son  of  God,'  and  serves 
to    introduce    the    statement  which   follows. 
The  name  Jesus  is  personal,  while  Christ  is 
oflScial.     "  The  Son  of  David  and  Son  of  God 
is  thus  finally  described  by  three  well-known 
titles:    'Jesus,'   which   identifies  him   as  the 
crucified    Saviour;     'Christ,'    the    promised 
Messiah,  and  'our  Lord,'  the  exalted  King,  to 
whom  'all  power  is  given  in  heaven  and  in 


>Paul,  in  1  Thess.  4:  14,  speaks  of  Christ's  dying  and 
rising  as  if  both  acts  were  of  his  own  choice  and  power. 
See  John  2:  19;  also  John  10:  18,  where,  however, 
Christ  says:  "  This  commandment  I  received  from  my 
Father."    The  usual  representation  of  the  Scriptures  is 


that  God  raised  Jesus  from  the  dead.  Acts  2 :  32 ;  3 :  15, 
26;  4:  10;  5:  30;  10:  40;  13:  30,  .33;  17:  31 ;  Rom. 8:  11  ; 
1  Cor.  15:  15:  2  Cor.  4:  14:  Col.  2:  12;  1  Thess.  1  :  10  ;  1 
Peter  1 :  21 ;  Fritzsche  on  Rom.  1:4;  see,  however,  Elli- 
cotton  Col.  2:  13.— (F.) 


Ch.  I.] 


ROMANS. 


29 


5  By  whom  we  have  received  grace  and  apostleship, 
for  obedience  to  the  faith  auioug  all  uations,  lor  his 
name : 


received  grace  and  apostleship,  unto  obedience  ^of 
faith  among  all  ihe  nations,  lor  his  names  sake: 


1  Or,  to  the  faith. 


earth.'"  (Dr.  Gifford,  in  "Bible  Commen- 
tary.") Here  'our  Lord'  (or  Master)  may 
also  refer  to  the  relation  which  Paul  and 
other  Christian  believers  sustained  to  him  as 
servants.  Prof.  Stuart  states  in  his  "Com- 
mentary" that  "Paul  gives  to  Christ,  ex- 
clusively, the  title  of  Lord  in  more  than  two 
hundred  and  fifteen  instances."  See  notes  on 
10:   12.] 

5.  By  whom  we  have  received.  [The 
preposition  (5ia)  with  the  genitive  {throuyh) 
donotes  the  instrumental  <)r  immediate  agency, 
while  a  different  preposition  (Oiro)  would  de- 
note the  i)rimary  and  remote  agency.  In 
this  overflowing  salutation,  as  Meyer  terms  it, 
Paul  must  again  recur  to  the  grace  of  his  high 
calling  of  Cod  in  and  through  Jesus  Christ. 
Compare  15: 16,  alsoEph.  3:8.  "  Unto  me  who 
am  less  than  the  least  of  all  saints  is  this 
grace  given,  that  I  should  preach  among  the 
Gentiles  the  unsearchable  riches  of  Christ."] 
The  indefinite  past  'received'  is  better  here 
than  the  perfect '  have  received.'  To  whom 
does  the  plural  '  we'  refer?  Not  to  those  to 
whom  he  writes;  for  they  had  not  received 
the  apostleship.  Not  to  Paul's  companions, 
regarded  as  joining  with  him  in  addressing 
the  Roman  disciples;  for  neither  had  they 
received  the  apostleship,  nor  is  there  any  men- 
tion of  such  in  the  beginning  of  this  Epistle, 
as  there  is  some  of  Paul's  letters,     (icor. i:i; 

2  Cor.  1:1;  Phil.  1:1;   Col.  1 :   1  ;   1  Theas.   I  :  1 ;  2  Thess.  1 : 1.) 

The  '  we  '  may  refer  to  the  apostles  as  a  class ; 
or  it  may  refer  to  Paul  alone,  and  the  clause, 
among  all  nations,  favors  this  latter  view. 
That  the  apostle  did  not  regard  it  as  improper 
thus  to  use  the  plural,  when  referring  only  to 
himself,   appears  from  3:9,  "rwchave  before 

proved,     etc."        (•^   Cor.   l:   8-12;    7:    5-8;    Gal.    1:    8,    9.) 

Grace  and  apostleship,  [not  grace  of 
apostleship,  but]  the  common  grace  of  God, 
by  which  he  was  called,  converted,  sanctified, 
and  sustained;  and,  in  addition  to  this,  the 
special  grace  by  which  he  was  called  to  be  the 
apostle  of  the  Gentiles.  The  former  is  re- 
ferred to  in  1  Cor.  15:  10,  and  the  latter  in 
Eph.  3:  8.  For  obedience  to  the  faith 
among  all  nations.  This  may  be  the  geni- 
tive of  apposition,  for  the  Greek  reads  "obe- 


dience of  faith"  [meaning,  according  to 
Philippi,  Godet,  Hodge,  the  obedience  which 
consists  of  faith].  Faith  is  obedience,  because 
it  is  commanded;  or  it  may  be  the  genitive  of 
subject;  for  faith /(/-oc/Mces  obedience  [Stuart]. 
Or  the  genitive  may  be  taken  in  a  broader 
sense  [as  by  Meyer,  DeWette],  in  which  it  is 
nearly  equivalent  to  the  dative,  denoting  that 
to  which  obedience  is  rendered,  as  in  the  ex- 
pression, "obedience  of  Chri-rt."  (2Cor.  io:5.) 
Our  translators  have  not  hesitated  to  treat  the 
genitive  in  such  ca.ses  as  a  dative.  See  Acts 
22:  3,  Revised  Version.  "  Zealous /or  God." 
[See  also  1  Peter  1:  22,  Revised  Version,  obe- 
dience to  the  truth,  compared  with  Rom.  10: 
16,  "They  obej'ed  not  (rendered  not  obe- 
dience to)  the  gospel,"  and  especially  (Actx  6: 7) 
"were  obedient  to  the  faith."  The  preposi- 
tion before  obedience  (eis)  has  in  such  connec- 
tions the  general  meaning:  loith  reference  to; 
here  it  means  for  the  promoting  of.  The 
word  "  oliedience  "  is  destitute  of  the  article, 
but  is  made  definite  by  the  noun  in  the  genitive 
which  follows;  and  this  latter  noun,  as  belong- 
ing to  the  class  of  general  abstract  terms 
which  commonly  do  not  take  the  article,  is 
also  without  it.  'Faith,'  the  important 
word  of  this  Epistle,  denotes,  according 
to  DeWette,  not  a  doctrinal  system,  but 
"the  new  salvation  which  consists  in  faith  as 
opposed  to  works."  Meyer  also  remarks  that 
"faith,"  in  the  New  Testament,  "is  always 
subjective,  though  often,  as  in  the  present  in- 
stance, conceived  of  objectively  as  a  power." 
Yet  see  Hodge's  comments  on  Rom.  12:  6. 
'Among  all  the  nations,'  or  Gentiles,  the  word 
being  used  in  both  senses.  Here  the  latter  is  pre- 
ferable, as  the  apostolate  of  Paul  had  special 
reference  to  the  Gentiles,  (ii:  is;  is:  i6.)  The 
word  occurs  fifty-five  times  in  Paul's  epistles, 
and  is  generally  rendered  Gentiles.]  For  his 
name.  [DeWette  and  Godet  refer  this  phrase 
to  the  whole  preceding  part  of  this  verse. 
Others  more  properly  connect  it  with  the 
words,  'obedience  of  faith.'  During  many 
long  years  of  trial  and  persecution  Paul 
sought  to  promote  this  sacred  obedience 
among  the  Gentile  nations,  not  for  his  own 
glory,  but  for  the  name  and  sake  of  Christ. 


30 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  I. 


6  Among  whom    are   ye  also   the   called  of  Jesus 
Christ : 

7  To  all  that  be  in  Rome,  beloved  of  God,  called  to  be 


6  among  whom  are  ye  also,  called  to  be  Jesus  Christ's: 

7  to  all  that  are  iu  Kome,  beloved  of  God,  called  to  be 


Nothing  will  so  help  us  to  live  and  suffer  for  the 
gospel,  or  to  perform  any  unpleasant  duty,  as 
the  thought  that  we  are  doing  it  for  that  blessed 
name.  Compare  2  Cor.  12:  10.]  All  was  for 
glory  of  his  name:  grace  comes  by  him; 
apostles  testify  of  him;  saving  faith  has  him 
for  its  object.  In  the  name  of  Christ  is 
summed  up  all  that  he  was,  did,  and  suffered. 
Compare  Acts  5:  41;  9:  16;  15:  26;  21:  13; 
1  Thess.  1 :  12. 

6,  Among  whom.  The  relative  'whom' 
refers  to 'all  nations' in  the  preceding  verse, 
and  so  appropriately  introduces  the  direct 
address  to  the  Roman  disciples  in  the  follow- 
ingverse:  they  were  apartof  the  'all  nations'  — 
that  is,  they  were  mainly  Gentiles  ('  nations' 
and  'Gentiles'  being  but  different  translations 
of  the  same  Greek  word),  and  so  belonged  ! 
properly  to  Paul's  jurisdiction  as  the  Apostle 
of  the  Gentiles.  (o.ai.  2:  9.)  [DeWette  and  Meyer 
(versus  Riickert,  Fritzsche,  Philippi,  Lange, 
Godet,  and  the  Revised  Version)  reject  the 
comma  after  the  'ye'  and  rendert  Among 
whoin  ye  also  are  called,  or,  the  called  ones. 
So  also  Alford,  who  says:  "The  assertion, 
'among  whom  are  ye,'  is  flat  and  unmean- 
ing."] The  called  of  Jesus  Christ.  Not 
merely  called  by  Jesus  Christ,  but  "Jesus 
Christ's  called  ones."  The  calling  here  is  not 
the  general  external  call,  as  in  Matt.  20 :  1 ; 
22:  14;  but  the  personal,  internal,  effectual 
call,  the  call  that  is  responded  to  in  obedience, 
as  always  in  the  epistles,  and  Revelation. 
Compare  8:  28,  30;  1  Cor.  1:  24;  Jude  1 ;  Rev. 
17:  14.  [The  rendering,  called  by  Jesus  Christ, 
(adopted  by  Alford,  Godet,  Shedd,)  is  gram- 
matically admissible.  See  "beloved  of  (by) 
God"  in  the  next  verse.  Rutin  Paul's  type 
of  doctrine,   the  calling  generally    proceeds 

from  God  the  Father.  («  :  30 ;  9 :  24 ;  Oal.  1 :  15 ;  1  Cor. 
1 :  9 ;  7  :   15,  17  ;    1  Thess.  2  :   12  ;  2  Thess.  2  :   14 ;   2  Tim.  1  :  9.) 

Hence,  with  DeWette,  Meyer,  Philippi,  we 
would  regard  the  genitive  as  possessive,  and 
the  called  ones  as  belonging  to  Christ,  or,  as 
above:  "Jesus  Christ's  called  ones."  Such 
are  called,  as  below,  "to  be  saints,"  called  in 
hope,  in  peace,  in  sanctification,  for  freedom, 
into  the  fellowship  of  Christ,   and  unto  life 

eternal.       (Ept.  4  :  4  ;  l  Cor.  7  :   15  ;  1  Thess.  4:7;  Gal.  5  :  13  ; 

1  Cor.  1:9;  1  Tim.  6:12.)    See  ElHcott  On  Eph.  4:4.] 


7.  To  all  that  be  in  Rome.  Connect  this 
v€rse  immediately  with  ver.  1.  [As  no  verb 
of  greeting  is  expressed,  we  may  make  'all 
that  be  in  Rome'  denote  simply  the  receivers 
of  the  letter,  just  as  the  name  Paul  indicates 
the  writer.  One  MS.  (G.)  of  the  ninth  cen- 
tury, omits  here,  and  in  ver.  15,  the  words  'in 
Rome,'  but  "this  quite  isolated  omi.ssion," 
says  Meyer,  "is  of  no  critical  weight."  He 
supposes  that  some  church  sought,  by  omitting 
those  words,  to  adapt  the  letter  to  their  own 
particular  church  use  in  public  reading.  Tiie 
most  ancient  superscy-iption  of  the  Epistle  is 
in  A  B  C  simply  :  to  the  Roinans.  No  more 
appropriate  soteriological  letter  could  now  be 
sent  "to  the  Romans"  than  this.]  To  all  the 
beloved  of  God  that  are  in  Rome  would  be  a 
less  ambiguous  order  of  the  words.  The 
Epistle  is  not  addressed  to  a^^  that  are  in  Rome, 
but  to  all  the  saints  there.  Paul's  earlier 
epistles  are  addressed  expressly  to  the  churches 

(l  Thess.  1 :  1 ;  2  Thess.  1:1:1  Cor.  1 :  1 ;  2  Cor.  1:1;  Gal.  1:2.); 
the    later,   to    the    saints.       (Rom.  l:  7;  Eph.  l:  l;  1  hil. 

1:  1;  coi.i:  1.)  "They  were  not  called,"  sa3's 
Augustine,  "in  consequence  of  their  being 
holj' ;  but  they  were  made  holy  in  conse- 
quence of  their  being  called."  [Called  to  be 
saints.  The  words  called  (kKtitoC)  and  church 
(e/cK\T)(rio)  are  etj^mologically  related,  and  both 
signify,  those  who  are,  by  God's  grace,  called 
out  from  the  world  or  mass  of  mankind  to 
become  saints,  sanctified  in  Christ  Jesus,  or 
specially  consecrated  to  his  service.  Those 
who  are  professedly  devoted  to  God  are  in  the 
New  Testament  called  saints,  whether  in- 
wardly sanctified  by  the  Holy  Spirit  or  not. 
For  different  meanings  of  the  word  saint,  see 
Ellicott's  "Commentary  on  Ephesians,"  1:  1. 
Bishop  Lightfoot  (on  "  Philippians, "  p.  13) 
gives  rather  a  gloomy  picture  of  the  un-orgi\r\- 
ized  condition  of  the  Roman  saints.  He  speaks 
of  them  as  "a  heterogeneous  mass,  with  diverse 
feelings  and  sympathies  (?),  with  no  well-de- 
fined organization."  Meyer  affirms  that  "the 
'beloved  of  God  in  Rome,  etc.,'  are  the  church, 
and  it  is  to  the  churches  that  Paul  has  written, 
where  he  does  not  write  to  specified  persons.'^ 
The  Epistle  to  the  Philippians  is  addressed 
likewise  to  "saints,"  yet  these  had  their 
"overseers  and  deacons."     And  we  read  of 


Ch.  I] 


ROMANS. 


31 


saints :  Grace  to  you,  and  peace,  from  'God  our  Father 
and  tUe  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 


saints :  Grace  to  you  Hnd  peace  from  God  our  Father 
and  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 


churches  in  individual  houses,  not  only  in  the 
letters  to  the  Colossians  and  Philemon,  but 
in  that  to  the  Corinthians.] 

Grace  to  you  and  peace,  the  divine 
favor,  and  the  liappiness  resulting  from  that 
favor.  [SoEllicott:  "  C/taris  expresses  God's 
(undeserved)  love  toward  man;  eirene,  the 
state  of  peace  and  blessedness  which  results 
from  it."  Charis,  or  grace,  according  to 
Prof.  Cremer,  has  respect  to  sin,  and  "gives 
prominence  to  the  freenessand  unoonditional- 
ness  of  God's  love,"  thus  di  tie  ring  from  eleos, 
or  mercy,  which  is  a  fellow-feeling  with 
wretchedness  and  misery.  "The  charis  of 
God  ...  is  extended  to  men  as  they  are 
guilty,  his  eleos  as  they  are  miserable." 
(Trench;  "New  Testament  Si'nonyms.") 
The  prayer  that  grace  and  peace  from  heaven 
may  rest  on  the  Roman  saints,  coming  as  it 
does  from  the  affectionate,  sympathizing  heart 
of  Paul,  certainly  represents  7nore  than  the 
"general  epistolary  ckairein,"  the  wish  of 
joy  or  prosperity.  Conybeare  and  Howson 
happily  allude  to  "the  combination  of  the 
Oriental  ;>eace  t^shalom)  with  the  Greek  grace 
or  joy  (the  Latin  gaudere)  in  the  opening  salu- 
tations of  all  St.  Paul's  epistles,"  as  "pro- 
claiming .  .  .  the  perpetual  union  of  the  Jew, 
the  Greek,  and  the  Roman."  With  the 
nouns  grace,  peace,  the  verb  may  be,  or,  as  in 
the  Epistles  of  Peter  and  Jude,  be  niult.iplied, 
is  to  be  understood.]  This  form  of  salutation 
is  peculiar  to  the  New  Testament.  It  is  found 
in  all  Paul's  epistles,  with  the  addition  of 
"mercy"  in  1  and  2  Timothy,  and,  accord- 
ing to  many  manuscripts,  in  Titus.  The  com- 
mon classical  form  (xatpeii')  translated  "greet- 
ing," is  used  only  three  times  in  the  New 
Testament,  Acts  15:  23;  23;  26;  James  1:  1, 
and  in  one  of  these  three  instances,  it  is  found 
in  the  letter  of  a  Roman  magistrate.  In  the 
other  two  instances,  it  may  be  regarded  as  a 
peculiarity  of  the  style  of  James,  as  he  seems 
to  have  presided  at  the  conference  in  Jerusa- 
lem from  which  the  apostolical  circular,  in 
Acts  15:  23-29,  emanated. 

[From  God  our  Father  and  {from)  the 
liord  Jesus  Christ.  Meyer  says:  "God  is 
never  called  our  and  Christ's  Father"  to- 
gether (compare  2  Tim.  1:  2;  Titus  1:  4^; 
yet  this  was  Erasmus's  rendering.     God  is  our 


Father  by  virtue  of  the  "adoption"  we  have 
received  through  and  in  Christ.  («:  i»)  This 
whole  formula:  "'Grace  .  .  .  Christ,"  is  ex- 
actly reproduced  in  the  Epistles  to  the  Corin- 
tliians,  Ephesians,  Phiiippiaiis,  and  Philemon. 
In  Galatians  it  is  "God  the  Father  and  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  and  the  same  in  2  Thessa- 
lonians,  save  that  the  'our'  is  omitted.  In  the 
letters  to  Timothy  we  have  "grace,  mercy, 
peace,  from  God  the  Father  and  Christ  Jesus 
our  Lord."  And  similarly  in  Titus  (Revised 
Version),  save  that  mercy  is  omitted,  and 
Jesus  is  called  our  Saviour.  In  Colossians  it 
simply  reads,  "from  God  our  Father,"  while  in 
1  Thessalonians,  we  have  merely:  "  Grace  to 
you  and  peace."  Thus,  according  to  the  revi- 
sion text,  in  eleven  out  of  thirteen  of  Paul's 
epistles,  the  names  of  God  the  Father,  and  of 
Christ,  are  associated  equally  together  as  the 
source  of  "grace,  mercy,  and  peace"  to  peni- 
tent and  believing  sinners,  and  "this  associa- 
tion," to  use  the  words  of  Dr.  Hodge,  "of  the 
Father  and  Christ  as  equally  the  object  of 
prayer  and  the  source  of  spiritual  blessings, 
is  a  conclusive  proof  that  Paul  regarded 
Christ  as  truly  God."  Meyer,  on  the  other 
hand,  says  that  "the  formal  equalization  of 
God  and  Christ  cannot  be  so  certainly  used  as 
a  proof  of  the  divine  nature  of  Christ — which, 
however,  is  otherwise  firmly  enough  main- 
tained by  Paul— since  the  different /jrerftccr^es 
(Father  and  Lord)  imply  the  different  con- 
ceptions of  the  principal  and  mediate  cause." 
But  no  creature,  certainlj',  can  be  equally  as- 
sociated with  God  in  any  real  communication 
of  grace  and  peace  to  sinners.  Among  the 
teachers,  sages,  and  saints  of  earth  who  lived 
prior  to  the  time  of  Christ,  and  whom  some 
writers  are  inclined  to  place  nearlj'  or  quite 
on  a  level  with  the  Saviour,  stand  pre-emi- 
nently the  names  of  the  "divine"  and  "god- 
like" Socrates,  Plato,  and  Seneca.  But  (and 
may  the  almost  blasphemous  supposition  be 
pardoned),  could  either  of  their  poor  names, 
or  the  names  of  any  of  our  modern  philoso- 
phic or  poetic  sages,  or  of  our  literary  demi- 
gods, be  well  substituted  here  for  that  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ?] 

The  salutatory  portion  of  the  Introduction 
to  the  Epistle  ends  here.  It  is  remarkable 
for  having  so  many  doctrinal  clauses,  paren- 


32 


KOMANS. 


[Ch.  I. 


8  First,  I  thank  niy  God  through  Jesus  Christ  for 
you  all,  thai  your  faith  is  spoken  of  throughout  the 
whole  world. 


8  First,  I  thank  my  God  through  Jesus  Christ  for 
you  all,  ithat  yourfuilh  is  proclaimed  throughout 

9  the  whole  world.     For  God  is  my  witness,  whom  I 


thetically  introduced.  There  is,  however, 
something  of  a  kindred  character  in  the  in- 
troductions to  Gaiatians,  Titus,  and,  still  more 
noticeably,  in  the  introduction  to  Hebrews. 

How  full  of  Christ  this  introduction  is !  He 
is  mentioned  four  times  by  name,  besides  two 
or  three  other  distinct  references,  in  these 
seven  verses.  ["We  ask,  as  we  read  the  sen- 
tence, whether  any  one  has  ever  compressed 
more  thoughts  into  fewer  words,  and  whether 
any  letter  was  ever  written  wliich  swept  so 
vast  an  horizon  in  its  few  opening  lines?" — 
Farrar.] 

(6)  Conciliatory.     (Ver.  8-15.) 

8.  First.  This  word  naturally  creates  the 
expectation  of  a  corresponding  second,  if  not 
of  a  further  numerical  designation  of  particu- 
lars. But  such  further  enumeration  is  not 
necessarily  implied  in  it,  and  does  not  always 
follow.  See  similar  instances  in  8:  2,  where 
the  same  Greek  word  is  translated,  "chiefly"  ; 
Acts  1:  1,  where  it  is  translated,  "former"; 
1  Cor.  11:  18;  1  Tim.  2:  1,  translated  "first 
of  all."  It  is  not  necessary  to  assume,  as 
Meyer  does,  that  "something  further  was 
meant  to  be  subjoined,  but  amidst  the  ideas 
that  now  crowd  upon  him,  he  abandons  this 
design."  Sometimes  the  word  may  denote 
merely  that  the  particular  mentioned  is  the 
most  important  oi  all,  as  in  Matt.  6:  33.i  I 
thank  my  God  through  Jesus  Christ. 
Paul  generally  begins  his  epistles  with  some 
expressions  of  thankfulness.  1  Cor.  1:  4; 
Phil.  1:  3;  Col.  1 :  3;  1  Thess.  1 :  2;  2  Thess. 
1:3;  Philemon  4;  compare  Eph.  1 :  16.  The 
letter  to  the  Gaiatians  forms  a  significant  ex- 
ception. Those  to  Timothy  and  Titus  are 
exceptions  also,  for  a  different  reason,  prob- 
ably because  intimacy  of  friendship,  and 
fullness  of  confidence  made  such  a  formal 
expression  superfluous."  'My  God.'  This 
appropriation  of  God,  by  faith,  hope,  and 
love,  is  one  of  the  most  sure  characteristics, 
and  one  of  the  most  blessed  experiences,  of 
the  child  of  God.     (ps.  63:  i.)     The  expression 


occurs  often  in  the  Psalms,  and  in  the  epis- 
tles, but  is  found  only  once  (except  as  used  by 
the  Savipur)  in  the  gospels.  (John20:28.) 
Luther  used  to  say  that  he  thanked  God 
for  the  little  words  in  the  Bible,  such  as  my, 
thy,  and  our.  [The  apostle,  it  will  be  noticed, 
does  not  praise  or  thank  his  Koman  brethren 
for  their  faith,  but  God  is  thanked  for  it,  as  be- 
ing a  divine  gift;  and,  as  Dr.  Gifford  (Bible, 
or  "Speaker's  Commentary")  remarks,  he 
seemingly  "regards  their  faith  as  a  gift  to 
himself."]  As  all  God's  favors  come  to 
us  through  Christ,  so  all  our  responsive  ac- 
knowledgments of  gratitude  should  return  to 

God  through  him.     (Col.S;  n;  Eph. 5:  2O;  Heb.lS:  15.) 

No  man  cometh  to  the  Father,  even  in  thanks- 
giving, but  by  him.  ["  All  our  services  need 
to  be  cleansed  and  hallowed  by  passing 
through  the  hands  of  our  most  holy  and 
undefiled  High  Priest."  (Barrow.)  Meyer, 
(and,  similarly,  DeWette,  Alford,  and  Phil- 
ippi)  regards  Christ  not  only  as  the  mediating 
presenter  of  the  thanksgiving,  but  also  as'the 
mediating  causal  agent  of  the  faith  for  which 
Paul  gives  thanks.]  For  you  all.  [The 
common  text  has,  in  behalf  of  (un-ep),  while 
the  revisers  read,  concerning  (irepC)  you  all.] 
This  is  a  high  encomium;  but  some  reproofs 
and  admonitions  in  later  portions  of  the 
Epistle  show  that  the  word  "all"  must  not 
be  pressed  with  too  strict  an  emphasis.  That 
your  faith.  [Prof.  Cremer says:  "TheNew 
Testament  conception  of  faith  includes  three 
main  elements,  mutually  connected  and  req- 
uisite, though,  according  to  circumstances, 
sometimes  one,  and  sometimes  another  may 
be  more  prominent — namely,  (1)  a  fully 
convinced  acknowledgment  of  the  revelation 
of  grace;  (2)  a  self-surrendering /pWowsAjjo 
(adhesion);  (3)  a  fully-assured  and  unswerv- 
ing trnst  (and  with  this,  at  the  same  time, 
hojye)  in  the  God  of  salvation,  or  in  Christ.'' 
See  Ellicott  on  Gal.  1:  23;  Lightfoot  on  Gal., 
page  154,  also  notes  on  ver.  5.  Faith,  sub- 
jectively considered,  "as  the  inward  experi- 


1  Alford  (and  so  Stuart)  finds  the  contrasting  thought 
in  the  thirteenth  verse,  whose  6«  corresponds  with  our 
(n-puTOf  ixiv)  :  "Ye  indeed  are  prospering  in  the 
faith,  but  (rfe)  I  still  am  anxious/urtAe»i  to  advance  that 


fruitfulness."     Godet  finds  a  virtual  secondly  in  ver. 
10,  but  this  reference  does  not  seem  so  natural. — (F.) 

sstill,  in  1  Tim.  1 :  12 ;  2  Tim.  1 :  3,  he  has  thanks  to 
give  {\apiv  «xw).— (F.)l 


Ch.  I.] 


ROMANS. 


33 


9  For  God  is  my  witness,  whom  I  serve  with  my 
spirit  in  the  gospel  of  his  Son,  that  without  ceasing  I 
make  mention  of  you  always  in  my  prayers ; 


serve  in  my  spirit  in  the  gospel  of  his  Son,  how  un- 


ence  of  belief,  and  trust  in  Christ"  (Boise), 
must  ever  have  a  doctrinal  basis  on  which  to 
rest.]     Spoken  of  throughout  the  whole 

world.  This  was  the  ground  of  his  thanks- 
giving. The  verb  here  used  is  in  several 
places  translated  "preached."  (acui:  2;  is:  », 
S8;  17:  3,13;  Col.  1 :  i8.)  It  implies  that  their  faith 
was  spoken  0/ frequently  and  emphatically  as 
a  remarkable  thing,  worthj'  to  be  announced 
everywhere.  [In  the  Revised  Version  the 
verb  is  generally  rendered  proclaim.  The 
faith  in  Christ  was,  of  course,  proclaimed  by 
believers  unto  believers  in  the  way  of  com- 
mendation. Unbelievers  might  say  that  this 
sect  of  which  the  Roman  Christians  formed  a 
part,  was  "everj'where  spoken  against."  For 
the  "Judgments  of  early  Pagan  writers  on 
Christianity,"  see  notes  on  ver.  16.]  'Through- 
out the  whole  world.'  While  it  cannot  be 
denied  that  there  is  an  element  of  hyperbole 
here  (as  in  10:  18;  Col.  1:  6;  1  Thess.  1:  8), 
yet  the  expression  shows  how  very  widely  the 
gospel  had  already  been  preached,  less  than 
thirty  years  after  our  Lord's  ascension.  The 
Roman  Empire  was  commonly  spoken  of  as 
the  whole  world — "  orbis  terrarum  " — com- 
pare Luke  2:1;  and  we  know  that  the  gospel 
had  already  been  preached  in  most  of  its  chief 
cities,  as  Jerusalem,  Antioch,  Smyrna,  Ephe- 
sus,  Thessalonica,  Corinth,  Athens,  and  Rome. 
Compare  15:  19.  It  is  important  to  observe  the 
nil-wise  providence  of  God,  in  this  rapid  and 
wide  ditiusion  of  the  gospel  during  the  apos- 
tolic age.  Starting  from  Jerusalem,  the  centre 
of  revealed  religion,  it  had  already  reached 
Rome,  the  centre  of  the  political  world  ;  from 
Jerusalem,  the  city  of  dispersion,  to  Rome, 
the  city  of  aggregation. 

9.  For  God  is  my  witness.  [This  exam- 
ple of  Paul  shows  that  the  name  of  God  may 
be  appealed  to  on  solemn  and  proper  occa- 
sions, but  will  not  justify  light  and  thought- 
less swearing — the  swearing  of  common  con- 
versation.] This  solemn  appeal  to  God  is  not 
uncommon  in  Paul's  epistJas.    (2Cor.  i:23;  ii:.ii: 

Qal.  1:20;  Phil.  1:8;   1  Thes3.2:i.)       Like    the    formal 

oath,  it  partakes  of  the  nature  of  worship. 
As  he  (by  the  use  of  'for,'  etc.)  appeals  to  his 
prayers  in  proof  of  his  thankfulness,  so  he 
appeals  to  God  in  proof  of  his  prayers.     No 


one  but  God  could  know  how  unceasingly  he 
prayed  for  them.  The  occasion  fully  justified 
this  solemnity.  It  is  important  that  those 
whom  we  wish  to  benefit  should  be  fully  per- 
suaded of  our  interest  in  them,  and  our 
prayers  for  them.  Paul  here  teaches  us,  by 
example,  our  duty  to  be  thankful  to  God  for 
the  faith  of  distant  heathen  converts,  and  to 
pray  for  them.  Whom  I  serve.  [Compare 
Acts  27:  23,  "Whose  I  am  and  whom  I 
serve."]  The  word  here  translated  'serve' 
(Aarpeiiw,  latreuo)  imports  a  sacred  religious 
service,  in  distinction  from  ordinary,  regular 
serving,  for  which  the  Greek  language  has  a 
more  generic  word.  The  generic  word 
{hovUvfiv)  is  used  in  Matt.  6:  24;  Luke  15:  29; 
Rom.  6:  6,  and  about  twenty  other  places, 
while  this  word  appropriated  to  religious  ser- 
vice is  used,  besides  this  passage,  in  Matt. 
4:  10;  Luke  2:  37;  Acts  26:  7,  and  about  a 
score  of  other  places.  The  clause,  with  (in) 
my  spirit  (compare  2  Tim.  1:  3)  marks  the 
living,  inner  sphere,  and  the  following  clause, 
in  the  gospel  of  his  Son,  the  outward 
sphere  of  his  sacred  service.  [Alford  says: 
"The  serving  God  in  his  spirit  was  a  guaran- 
tee that  the  oath  just  taken  was  no  mere  form, 
but  a  solemn  and  earnest  appeal  of  his  spirit." 
And  Umbreit,  as  quoted  by  Alford,  remarks 
that  the  apostle,  by  the  use  of  this  verb 
(Aorpeiiw)  "  nicans  that  he  is  an  intelligent, 
true  priest  of  his  God,  not  in  the  temple,  but 
in  his  spirit,  not  at  the  altar,  but  at  the  gospel 
of  his  Son."  There  is  another  word  {ep-qaKeia) , 
found  in  Act?  26:  5;  Col.  2:  18;  James  1: 
26,  27,  which  denotes  an  external,  ceremonial 
religious  service.  Another  term,  (Aetroupyia), 
whence  comes  our  word  liturgy,  is  used  of 
public  religious  service,  both  of  Jews  and 
Christians  (Heb.  jo:  u;  Acts  IS:  2),  and  of  other 
kinds  of  (public)  service.  (Rom.  is:  27,  etc.) 
Sehazomai  (o-e^a^o^iai),  to  "worship,  in  ver.  25, 
denotes  a  devotional  reverence.  Proskuned 
( rrpoiTKvi'eoi) ,  to  do  honiagc,  does  not  occur  in 
this  letter,  but  often  in  the  gospels.  Acts,  and 
Revelation.  Latreuo,  literally,  to  serve  for 
hire,  and  hence  voluntarily,  is  thus  an  appro- 
priate word  to  denote  religious  service.  '  His 
Son'  is  commonly  regarded  either  as  genitive 
objective,  gospel  concerning  his  Son,  or  sub- 


34 


EOMANS. 


[Ch.  I. 


10  Making  request,  if  by  any  means  now  at  length  I 
might  have  a  prosperous  journey  by  the  will  of  (jod  to 
couie  unto  you. 

11  For  1  long  to  see  you,  that  I  may  impart  unto  you 
some  spiritual  gift,  to  the  end  ye  may  be  establishea  ; 


ceasingly  I   make  mention  of  you,  always  in  my 

10  jirayers  making  request,  if  by  any  means  now  at 
length  I  may  be  prospered  i  by  the  will  of  God  to 

11  come  unto  you.    For  1  long  to  see  you,  that  1  may 


jective,  gospel  made  known  by  his  Son.  Per- 
haps we  may  name  it  the  genitive  of  the  con- 
tents or  subject  matter,  denoting  thus  the 
gospel  of  which  Christ  is  the  subject  and  the 
substance.]  The  two  words  translated  that 
Avithout  ceasing  [so  DeWette]  might  more 
exactly  be  rendered,  'how  unceasingly.' 
They  refer  not  merely  to  the  fact,  but  to  the 
degree,  of  his  constancy  in  prayer  for  them. 
[For  a  like  construction,  see  2  Tim.  1:  3.] 
I  make  mention  of  you  always  in  my 
prayers. — Paul  affirms  with  equal  emphasis 
in  other  epistles  his  constant  prayers  for  the 
disciples  to  whom  he  wrote.  (Eph.  i:  i6:  Phii.  i; 
3,4;  Col.  1: 3, 9j  1  The.-s.  1 :  2.)  [See  also  notes  on  15: 
30.  The  word  'mention,'  without  the  verb, 
signifies  'remembrance'  (compare  Phil.  1:3; 
1  Thess.  3:  6),  and  can,  we  think,  be  used  in 
that  signification  here :  for  example,  make 
remembrance  of  you,  or  call  you  to  mind. 
The  verb,  though  in  the  middle  voice,  is  here 
simply  active  ;  yet  see  Winer,  .  256.  The 
Greek  preposition  (en-t)  may  here  signify  'on 
occasion  of,'  hence  'at'  or  'in'  my  praj-ers.] 

10.  Making  request,  etc.  In  accordance 
with  the  order  of  the  words  in  the  original, 
and  to  avoid  the  tautology  of  '  unceasingly ' 
and  'always'  qualifying  the  same  word,  it 
would  be  well  to  join  this  latter  adverb  with 
'making  request.'  The  tenth  verse  then 
begins:  'Always  in  my  prayers  making  re- 
quest,' etc.i 

If  by  any  means  now  at  length.  The 
whole  form  of  expression  in  this  verse  is  very 
significant  and  characteristic,  intimating  his 
earnest  desire  to  visit  the  Konian  disciples, 
with  the  emphatic  recognition  of  probable 
hindrances,  suggested,  or  at  least  confirmed,  by 
actual  experience  (compare  ver.  13,  also  15: 
22),  and  ending  by  submitting  the  whole  mat- 
ter to  the  will  of  God.  [Paul  at  this  time  was 
in  fearful  straits — so  dark  and  uncertain  was 
the  prospect  before  him  (Acts,  20:22;  Rnm.  15, 30, 31) ; 


and  in  God  alone  to  whom  he  could  make 
appeal  and  prayer  was  his  help  and  hoj)e.] 
This  single  verb  translated  I  might  have  a 
prosperous  journey  has  commonly  the  sec- 
ondary and  more  general  sense,  "to  be  pros- 
pered," without  any  specific  reference  to  the 
original  idea  of  a  journey.  [Perhaps,  for- 
warded, ov  furthered,  may  be  the  intermediate 
link  between  the  literal  and  the  tropical  sig- 
nification. The  parting  wish  for  the  living 
and  the  dead  among  the  Greeks  is  expressed 
by  this  word,  meaning  farewell.]  So  our 
words  welfare  and  farewell,  of  similar  ety- 
mology to  the  Greek  word  here  used,  have 
dropped  the  original  idea  of  a  journey,  ex- 
pressed by  the  syllable  fare.  Meyer  trans- 
lates the  word  here  by  an  expression  equiva- 
lent to  "I  shall  have  the  good  fortune." 
The  reasons  for  preferring  tlie  more  general 
secondary  sense  to  the  stricter  etj'mological 
one  are,  that  the  apostle  had  not  yet  set  out  on 
his  journey;  and,  which  has  tlie  greater  force, 
the  fact  that  in  the  three  other  i)laces  in  which 
the  same  word  is  used  in  the  New  Testament, 
the  meaning  seems  to  be  simply  "  to  be  pros- 
pered,'' without  any  reference  to  a  journej'. 

(1  Cor.  16;  2;3  Jolin2,  twice.)       [By    {in)    the    Wili    of 

God  to  come  unto  you.  He  bases  his  hoped- 
for  prospering  in  his  homeward  journey  in  the 
will  of  God  to  whom,  as  Philippi  remarks, 
"  All  the  pious  subordinate  their  wills"  in  all 
their  proposed  undertakings  and  in  all  their 
prayers.  See  15 :  32  ;  also  Acts  18  :  21 ;  1  Cor. 
4 :  19 ;  16 :  7  ;  James  4:15.  '  To  come  '  depends 
on  the  verb  prospered.] 

11.  He  now  gives  the  reason  why  he  prayed 
for  them  so  constantly. 

For  I  long  to  see  you.  He  did  notmerely 
desire  or  wish  to  see  them  :  he  longed  for  that 
privilege  ;  the  word  is  emphatic.  Compare 
2  Cor.  9:  14;  Phil.  1:8;  2:26;  1  Thess.  3: 
6:  2  Tim.  1:4.  In  the  last  two  passages  the 
Greek  word  is  the  same,  though  translated 


iThe  word  for  prayers  (irpotrcux^)  is  a  sacred  word,  I  always  addressed  to  God, '  entreaty  '  may  be  addressed 
rare  in  profane  authors,  and  according  to  Fritzsche,  dif-    to  God  or  man.    See  Trench's  "New  Testament  Syn- 
fers  from  (Serjo-tq)  entreaty  arising  from  a  sense  of  need,    onyms,"  p.  189. — (F.) 
as  precatw  from  rorjatio.    In  other  words,  '  prayer '  is  I 


Ch.  L] 


ROMANS. 


35 


12  That  is,  that  I  may  be  comforted  together  with 
you  by  the  mutual  faith  both  of  you  aud  me. 


impart  unto  you  some  spiritual  gift,  to  the  end  ye 

12  may  be  established ;  that  is,  that  I   with  you  may 

be  comforted  in  you,  each  of  us  by  the  other's  faith, 


dittercntly.  The  word  'see'  is  used  here  in  a 
coiiiproheiisive  sense,  as  often  in  our  common 
speech,  meaning  to  visit  and  converse  with  : 
indeed  the  word  visit  means  primarily  "to 
see."  [Nearly- ayear  befc^re  writing  this  letter, 
wliile  laboring  in  E[)liesus,  Paul,  after  express- 
ing his  purpose  to  pass  tii rough  Macedonia 
and  Achaia  to  Jerusalem,  then  says :  "  After 
I  have  been  there,  I  must  also  see  Rome." 
(voni9:2i.)  The  motive  for  his  wishing  to  see 
tlie  city  of  the  Ctesars,  the  metropolis  and 
Tiiistress  of  the  world,  is  indicated  below.'  It 
was  not  to  see  its  marble  temples  and  palaces, 
its  theatres,  aqueducts,  baths,  and  fountains,  its 
columns  and  statues  and  triumphal  arches, 
but  to  "  preach  the  gospel,"  to  advance  the 
spiritual  interests  of  his  brethren,  to  strengthen 
them  in  the  faith,  and  also — that  he  might 
have  fruit  among  the  Roman  people  as ainong 
otlier  Gentiles — to  win,  if  possible,  the  wor- 
shipers of  Mars  and  Jupiter,  of  Bacchus  and 
Venus,  to  the  service  of  Christ.]  That  I 
may  impart  unto  you  some  spiritual  i;ift. 
Probably  the  reference  is  not  to  viiraciilous 
gifts  in  particular,  but  to  spiritual  benefit  of 
whatever  kind.  His  desire  to  see  them  was  not 
for  the  gratification  of  curiosity,  nor  to  receive 
attention,  kindness,  and  bonor  from  them, 
nor  from  any  other  selfish  or  secular  motive; 
it  was  a  benevolent  desire;  he  wished  to  do 
tiiem  good  spirituallj'.  The  three  words  'soine 
sjiirilual  gift'  are  separated  from  each  otber 
in  the  original,  in  such  a  way  as  to  make  eacb 
more  prominent,  and  to  give  a  peculiar  deli- 


cacy and  grace  to  the  expression,  which  cannot 
be  fully  exhibited  in  English.  His  language 
does  not  imply  that  they  were  destitute  of  spir- 
itual gifts,  or  particularly  lacking  in  respect 
to  them,  but  only  that  they  had  not  all  which 
it  was  possible  and  desirable  for  them  to  have; 
and  there  was,  moreover,  an  indirect  compli- 
ment to  them  in  the  implied  as^uniption  that 
nothing  would  be  more  grateful  to  them  than 
an  increase  of  spiritual  gifts.*  To  the  eud 
ye  may  be  established.  Neither  does  this 
imply  any  special  weakness  or  wavering  on 
their  part.  All  Christians  need  to  be  estab- 
lished— that  is,  to  have  their  faith,  hope  and 
love,  and  all  their  graces  confirmed  and  in- 
creased. Observe  he-does  not  say  "  that  I  may 
establish  you,"  but  'that  ye  may  be  estab- 
lished.' There  is  no  arrogant  assumption,  no 
appearance  of  desiring  to  make  his  own  agency 
prominent. 2 

12.  That  is.  [Compare  7:  18.]  As  if  be 
wished  to  guard  against  any  possible  suspicion 
of  assuming  tliat  the  benefit  was  to  be  all  on 
one  side,  he  occupying  the  superior  position 
of  a  giver,  and  they  the  humbler  position  of 
receivers,  he  adds  'that  is,'  or,  by  this  I  mean 
to  say,  that  I  may  be  comforted.*  This 
verb  is  of  very  frequent  occurrence  in  the 
New  Testament ;  and  is  rendered  most  com- 
monly, beseech,  comfort,  exhort.  Neither  of 
these  English  words  fully  expresses  its  mean- 
ing; hiit  the  word  comfort,  in  its  original, 
etj'mological  sense  {from  the  Latin  "con" 
and  "fortis")  comes  perhaps  nearest  to  being 


1  From  the  supposed  force  of  (iieTa)  in  composition, 
Pr.  Sihatr  renders  the  verb  share  wilh  you.  But  this 
idea  of  mutual  benefit  is,  we  think,  first  introduced'in 
the  next  verse.  Had  the  verb  been  followed  by  the 
genitive  of  the  thing,  as-is  usual  in  the  classics,  the 
above  rendering,  perhaps,  would  be  more  plausible. 
But  Winer,  p.  198,  says,  in  reference  to  this  passage, 
and  to  1  Thess.  2 :  8,  that  Paul  could  not  have  used  the 
genitive  after  this  verb,  for  "  hedid  not  purposetocom- 
municate  a  portion  of  (from)  a  spiritual  gift,  or  a 
portion  of  (from)  the  gospel."  The  verb  is  found 
elsewhere  only  in  12:  8;  Luke  3:  11;  Kph.  4:  28;  1 
Thess.  2:  8.  On  wceu/xaTKcbv  (spiritual),  as  generally  ' 
referring  to  fhe  Holy  Spirit,  see  Ellicott  on  Eph.  1:3. 
The  x'^P*-<fi'-'>-  is  distinguished  from  Sipoi'  as  being  a 
gracious  gift.  Any  thing  imparted  by  the  Spirit 
through  God's  free  grace,  is  a  spiritual  xapicrna. — (F.) 

^The  construction  here,  eisi  with  the  intiuitive,  ex-  i 


pressive  of  purpose  (similarly  to  toO  with  the  infinitive), 
is  rather  a  favorite  with  Paul,  occurring  some  seven- 
teen times  in  this  Epistle.  .See  at  ver. 20.  Hispredilec- 
tion  for  this  is,  according  to  Buttmann  ("  tirammar  of 
the  New  Testament."  pp.  236,  264,  2G6),  similar  to  that 
of  the  Apostle  John  for  Iva,  in  order  thai,  the  same 
occurring  in  his  gospel  nearly  one  hundred  and  fifty 
times,  and  in  his  opistles'  twenty-five  times.  The 
student  will  notics  t'-st  the  infinitive  here,  as  gener- 
ally throughout  the  New  Testament,  is  followed  by  its 
subject.— (f.) 

'The  accusative-subject  of  the  infinitive,  it-i  or  ifki 
(me),  is  here,  according  to  a  general  rule,  omitted,  .since 
the  subject  of  the  infinitive  is  the  same  as  that  of  the 
leading  verb.  Notice  also,  as  in  ver.  22,  and  in  many 
other  places,  how,  in  case  of  the  suppressed  accusative, 
the  qualifying  words  are  subjoined  in  the  nominative. 
The  verb  is  used  only  here  as  a  compound. — (F.) 


36 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  I. 


13  Now  I  would  not  have  you  ignorant,  brethren,  I  13  both  yours  and  mine.    And  I  would  not  have  you 
that  oltentiuaes  I  purposed  to  come  unto  you,  (but  was         ignorant,  brethren,  that  oftentimes  I  purposed  to 

I       come  unto  you  (and  was  hindered  hitherto),  that  I 


equivalent.  The  corresponding  abstract  noun 
is  translated  by  the  words  "exhortation," 
"consolation,"  "comfort";  and  the  corres- 
ponding personal  noun  (irapaKArjTo?)  when  ap- 
plied to  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  translated  "the 
Comforter"  (Jounurie,  26;  is-.  26;  i6:7j,  and  once, 
when  applied  to  Christ,  "Advocate."  (uoiin 
2:1.)  The  radical  idea  seems  to  be  to  comfort, 
or  strengthen,  by  encouraging,  as  one  is  com- 
forted and  strengthened  to  meet  difficulties 
and  trials  by  having  another  called  to  his  side, 
to  cheer  and  help  him.  There  is  a  peculiar 
delicate  courtesy  and  condescension  in  the 
last  two  verses  characteristic  of  Paul.  He 
seems  to  wish  to  put  himself  on  a  level  with 
those  to  whom  he  writes.  [The  iniinitive 
here  employed  is  by  Do  Wette  made  to  de- 
pend on  the  verb  '  established.'  Others  regard 
it  as  parallel  with  to  see  {iSelv).  This  last  is  the 
view  of  Meyer,  who  says :  "  The  delicate  turn 
which  he  gives  to  the  matter  is  this:  Ho  see 
you  in  order  that  I,'  etc.,  means  nothing  more 
than  '  to  be  quickened  along  with  you  and 
amonff  you.'  "  The  Bible  Union  renders  this 
whole  clause  as  follows  :  "  That  is,  to  be  com- 
forted together  among  you,  by  each  other's 
faith,  both  yours  and  mine."  The  mutual 
faith  is  not  faith  in  each  other,  but  that  faith 
which  was  common  to  both — faith  of  you  as 
well  as  of  me.  "The  arrangement  of  these 
words  (the  emphatic  position  of  you — setting 
them  before  himself)  bespeaks  the  delicacy 
and  fine  feeling  of  the  apostle."  (Philippi.) 
"There  is  a  truth  underlying  the  apostle's 
courtesy,  which  is  not  mere  compliment.  The 
most  advanced  Christian  will  receive  some- 
thing from  the  humblest."  (Principal  San- 
day.)] 

13.  Now  I  would  not  have  you  igno- 
rant. [The 'now'  (Se)  is  continuative  and 
"slightly  oppositive,"  not  strongly  so  as  in 
hut.  It  naturally  follows  the  thought  that 
Paul  had  for  many  years  so  strongly  desired 
to  see  the  Eoman  Christians,  and  yet  had 
stayed  away  all  that  time.]  This  expression 
[which  generally  introduces  something  new 
and  important]  is  an  illustration  of  that  figure 
of  speech  (meidsis),  which  is  the  opposite  of 


hyperbole,  or  exaggeration.  Here  less  is  said 
than  is  meant,  and  the  phrase  is  equivalent  to 
"I  wish  you  to  know."  Often  this  is  more 
forcible  than  the  opposite  figure.  In  that, 
reflection  teaches  us  to  abate  something  from 
the  full  meaning  of  the  words;  in  this,  reflec- 
tion leads  us  to  add  something  to  the  strict 
sense  of  the  words.  The  effect  of  the  expres- 
sion here,  as  in  11 :  25;  1  Cor.  10:1;  12:  l;2Cor. 
1:  8;  1  Thess.  4:  13,  is  to -lay  an  additional 
stress  on  the  accompanying  communication. 
Brethren.  This  is  the  first  time  that  this 
word  is  found  in  the  epistles.  The  most  com- 
mon designations  of  Christians  in  the  New 
Testament  are  "disciples,"  "saints,"  "breth- 
ren"; but  these  different  terms  are  found  in 
very  (Wflerent  pro]:)ortions  in  difierent  parts  of 
the  New  Testament.  The  following  table 
shows  this  very  plainly  : 

Gospels.         Acts.         Epislles. 

Disciples 230  times.    30  times.      0  times. 

Saints  0  (i)  "         4(2)  "         55      " 

Brethren  15       "       30       "      190     "        about. 

This  difference  suggests  several  instructive 
reflections:  one  of  these  certainly  is  the  im- 
portance attached  in  the  Scriptures  to  the 
organization  of  the  church.  Of  these  three 
terms,  "brethren  "  is  the  one  that  points  most 
distinctly  to  the  union  of  Christians  in  one 
family  of  God,  one  body  of  Christ,  which  is 

the  church.       (Kph.  2:  19;  l  Tim.  3  :  15  ;  Eph.  5:  23;  5:  30; 

Col.  1;  24.)     Oftentimes  I  purposed  to  come 

unto  you.  In  15:  23  he  tells  them  that  he 
had  cherished  this  purpose  "  for  many  yeai-s," 
[and  in  the  same  chapter  he  further  makes 
known  that  he  intended  Spain,  and  not  Kome, 
to  be  the  "Western  terminus,  and  principal 
scene  of  his  missionary  labors].  The  apostles 
were  sometimes  guided  in  their  purposes  and 
movements  by  immediate  divine  direction, 
as  we  learn  from  Acts  10:  20;  16:  6,  7; 
but  not  commonly:  in  ordinary  cases,  they 
formed  their  purposes,  and  laid  their  plans 
according  to  human  sagacity,  like  other  pious 
men,  praying,  of  course,  for  divine  guidance; 
and  they  were  liable  to  be  disappointed  and 
hindered,  just  like  other  men.  [Prof  Stuart 
thinks  we  may  infer  from  this  that  "the  apos- 


1  Matt.  27:  52  is  thought  by  some  to  refer  to  Old  Testament  saints. 
«9:  13,  32,41;  26:  10, 


Ch.  I.] 


ROMANS. 


37 


let  hitherto,)  that  I  might  have  some  fruit  among  you 
also,  even  as  among  other  Gentiles. 

14  I  am  debtor  both  to  the  Greeks,  and  to  the  Bar- 
barians ;  both  to  the  wise,  and  to  the  unwise. 


might  have  some  fruit  in  you  also,  even  as  in  the 

14  re.st  of  the  Gentiles.    I  am  debtor  both  to  Greeks  and 

to  Barbarians,  both  to  the  wise  and  to  the  fooliBh. 


ties  were  (not)  uniformly  inspired  in  nil  which 
they  purposed,  said,  or  did."]  But  was  let 
hitherto.  What  the  nature  of  the  letting, 
or  hindrance,  was  we  are  not  told.  Very 
likely  it  was  the  more  urgent  call  for  his 
labors  in  nearer  places,  where  Christ  was 
less  known,  to  which  he  alludes  in  15:  20-28; 
or  it  may  have  been  some  express  divine  prohi- 
bition, as  in  16:  7;  or  even  some  hindrance 
from  an  altogetKer  opposite  source,  as  in  1 
Thess.  2:  18.  Hitherto.  The  original  word 
here  used  everywhere  else  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment refers  to  place;  here,  only  to  time. 
That  I  might  have  some  fruit.  [On  the 
occasional  use  of  the  subjunctive  (here,  prop- 
erly, may  have)  after  a  verb  in  the  past  tense, 
"to  denote  an  action  still  continuing,  either 
in  itself,  or  in  its  results,"  see  Winer,  287. 
This  usage  is  quite  frequent  in  this  Epistle, 
the  subjunctive  taking  the  place  of  the  classic 
optative,  which  mood  has  entirely  disappeared 
from  modern  Greek.  In  ver.  11  we  have  the 
subjunctive  after  the  present  tense,  the  more 
usual,  or,  at  least,  the  more  natural,  construc- 
tion. The  word  'some'  (rifd)  is  here  em- 
phatic.^ Most  uncials  locate  it  before  the 
noun,  which  is  not  its  usual  order  in  the  New 
Testament.]  This  'fruit'  may  mean  either 
the  conversion  of  sinners,  or  the  advance- 
ment of  saints  in  holiness  and  Christian 
activity.  The  word  is  used  in  both  applica- 
tions. For  the  first,  see  John  4:  35,  36;  15: 
16;  for  the  second.  Matt.  13:  23;  Kom.  6: 
22;  Col.  1:  6.  The  latter  sense  is  here  pre- 
ferred as  being  the  more  frequent,  and  agree- 
ing better  with  ver.  11,  12.  The  last  clause 
intimates  that  his  hope  of  having  some  fruit 
at  Kome  was  founded  upon  his  experience 
elsewhere.  [This  clause  is  connected,  in 
thought,  with  the  one  preceding  the  last. 
As  previously,  so  here,  the  idea  is  implied 
that  the  benefit  of  Paul's  labors  among  the 


Komans  was  not  to  be  wholly  theirs.  He 
desires  'fruit'  as  his  "joy  and  rejoicing,"  and 
he  modestly  uses  the  word  'some.'  In  the 
New  Testament,  the  word  '  fruit'  is  generally 
used  in  a  good  sense.  Even  as  (I  also  have 
fruit)  amoug  other  Gentiles.  Meyer  says: 
"  There  was  present  to  the  apostle's  mind  the 
twofold  conception,  '  Among  you  also,  as 
among,'  and,  'Among  you,  as  also  among.'  " 
The  Roman  Christians  generally  are  here  re- 
garded as  being  formerly-  Gentiles,  or  heathen. 
This  fact  is  clearly  indicated  in  other  pas- 
sages of  the  Epistle,  especially  in  the  eleventh 
chapter.] 

14.  Paul  considers  himself  a  debtor  to  all 
classes  of  men*  not  on  account  of  any  favors 
which  he  had  received  from  them ;  for  he 
received  little  else  than  abuse  and  persecu- 
tion; but  in  view  of  that  law  of  Christian 
stewardship  and  responsibility  by  virtue  of 
which  every  man — and  pre-eminently  every 
Christian — is  bound  to  communicate  to  others 
every  good  thing  which  he  possesses,  in  pro- 
portion to  their  need,  and  his  own  ability; 
and  the  greater  his  advantage  over  others,  in 
respect  to  natural  ability,  and  acquired  knowl- 
edge, and  providential  favors,  and  gifts  of 
grace,  the  greater  his  debt  to  them.  Very 
few  men,  if  any,  owe  their  fellowmen  as 
much  as  Paul  did;  and  very  few  indeed,  if 
any,  feel  the  debt  so  profoundly,  or  discharge 
it  so  fully.  If  all  who  are  more  highly  favored 
than  their  fellows  had  the  spirit  of  Paul  in 
this  respect,  we  should  not  hear  so  much  of 
the  prejudice  of  the  ignorant  against  the  edu- 
cated, nor  would  there  be  any  manifestation 
of  the  far  more  inexcusable  prejudice  of  the 
educated  against  the  ignorant.  Of  the  epi- 
thets which  Paul  applies  to  his  creditors,  the 
first  two  relate  to  national  distinctions,  the 
last  two  to  personal  distinctions.^  He  re- 
garded himself  as  owing  a  debt  to  men  of  all 


*  See  the  different  accent  of  riva  in  the  "what  fruit" 
of  6:  21.— (F.) 

2  T«  KoX,  not  only  to  the  Greeks,  but  also  to  the  bar- 
barians, the  last  member  being  probably  the  more 
emphatic.     See  Prof.  Thayer's  "  Lexicon." — (F.) 

3  At  Coiinth  and  Athens  Paul  would  especially  meet 
■with  the  professedly  "  wise,"  but  the  "unwise  "he  would 
encounter  everywhere.     This  last  word  (opoi)to«)  is 


used  in  five  other  passages,  Luke  24:  2r>\  Gal.  3:  1,  3; 
1  Tim.  6:9;  Titus  3:  3,  and  is  in  the  Revised  Version 
everywhere  rendered  foolish.  This  refers  not  so  much 
to  natural  dullness  of  intellect  as  to  an  "insufficient 
application"  of  it.  (Ellicott  on  Galatians3:  1.)  Of 
other  kindred  words,  aifipuii',  "  a  strong  term,"  seems  to 
refer  to  senselessness,  and  ao-uKero?  to  slowness  of  un- 
derstanding. Compare  Luke  12 :  20 ;  Mark  7 :  18.  Trench 


38 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  I. 


15  So,  as  much  as  in  me  is,  I  am  ready  to  preach  the  I  15  So,  as  much  as  ia  me  is,  I  am  ready  to  preach  the 
gospel  to  you  that  are  at  Rome  also.  I  16  gospel  to  you  also  that  are  iu  Kome.    For  I  am  not 


races,  and  of  all  degi'ees  of  culture.  He  who 
so  regards  himself  has  the  highest  qualifica- 
tion for  doing  good  unto  all  men,  as  he  has 
opportunity,  (oai.  6:io.)  [It  was  the  apostle's 
wish,  and  it  had  been  made  his  duty,  to  preach 
the  gospel  in  Pagan  Rome.  Christ,  the  apos- 
tle's Lord  and  Master,  had  died  for  all;  and 
to  preach  this  gospel  to  Greeks  and  barbarians 
was  the  stewardship  which  was  entrusted  to 
him.  It  was  for  this  he  had  been  "set  apart." 
From  the  Grecian  standpoint,  even  the 
Romans  would  be  styled  "barbarians" — a 
term  which  properly  embraced  all  non -Greek- 
speaking  nations.  But  the  Romans,  in  their 
pride,  and  with  their  general  Grecian  culture, 
regarded  all  nations  as  barbarous  except  the 
Greeks  and  themselves.  Paul  certainly  would 
not  class  the  Romans,  to  whom  he  was  writing, 
with  barbarians,  much  less,  with  the  unwise. 
"He  reckons  as  Greek  those  to  whom  he  is 
writing  in  Greek."  (Bengel.)  The  two  words 
denote  all  Gentiles,  all  mankind  indeed,  with 
the  exception  of  the  Jews.  In  Jesus  Christ 
there  is  neither  Jew  nor  Greek,  barbarian  nor 
Scythian.     (Coi.3:  ii.)]i 

15.  So,  as  much  as  in  me  is.  [There 
are  several  diiTerent  renderings  of  this  clause 
but  they  do  not  materially  afl'ect  the  sense. 
"The  on-my-part  inclination"  is  preferred  by 
Meyer ;  "So  far  as  it  concerns  me  there  is  an 
inclination,"  etc.,  is  favored  by  De  Wette. 
The  as-for-me  is  "chosen  out  of  a  feeling  of 
dependence  on  a  liigher  will."    (Meyer.)]     I 


am  ready  to  preach  the  gospel  to  you 
that  are  at  Rome  also.  'So,' — that  is,  in 
accordance  with  this  view  of  our  indebted- 
ness, 'As  much  as  in  me  is,  I  am  ready.'  Tht 
expression  indicates  his  modesty,  perhaps  with 
a  thought  of  probable  hindrance.  The  word 
'  ready '  not  merely  denies  any  reluctance, 
but  affirms  a  positive  forwardness.  The 
same  word  is  translated  "willing"  in  Matt. 
2G :  41,  and  "ready"  in  the  corresponding 
passage  of  Mark  (14:  38).  •  The  correspond- 
ing noun  is  translated  "forwardness  of  mind," 
"readiness of  mind,"  etc.,  in  2  Cor.  9:  2;  Acts 
17:  11;  2  Cor.  8:  11,  12,  19.  'To  preach  the 
gospel  to  you  that  are  at  Rome  also.'  The  origi- 
nal is  much  briefer — "  to  preach  the  gospel  " 
being  expressed  '[>y  a  single  word — literally, 
"evangelize."  [This  term^  does  not  imply 
that  Paul's  preaching  was  to  have  reference 
solely  to  the  unconverted,  whether  of  Jews  or 
Gentiles.  The  Roman  Christin7is  would  need 
the  gospel  as  it  would  be  preached  by  the  apos- 
tle. To  you  (the  called  saints)  that  are  in 
Romealso.  "  Although  you  belong  tothe  wise, 
this  causes  me  no  scruples  as  one  who  is 
debtor  to  the  wise."  (Philippi.)  As  a  debtor 
to  the  Gentiles,  Paul  would  feel  himself  to  be 
under  special  obligation  to  preach  the  gos- 
pel in  Rome,  the  capital  city  of  the  Gentile 
world.  Let  us  be  thankful  that  some  three 
years  after  this  he  was  permitted  to  preach  the 
gospel  in  Rome,  though  under  difi"erent  cir- 
cumstances from  those  he  expected.    He  went 


remarks  that "  while  the  ao-uVero?  need  not  be  more  than 
intellectually  deficient;  in  the '"'oitos  there  is  always 
a  moral  fault  lying  behind  the  intellectual."  With 
Christ  (and  the  same  is  true  of  Paul),  "  distinctions 
of  race,  intervals  of  ages,  types  of  civilization,  de- 
grees of  mental  culture,  are  as  nothing."  —  Liddon's 
'■  Bampton  Lectures  on  our  Lord's  Divinity,"  p.  8. — (F.) 
1  Prof.  Max  Muller,  in  Lecture  IV.,  p.  128,  of  his 
"  Lectures  on  the  Science  of  Language,"  thus  remarks: 
"  Not  till  that  word  '  barbarian '  was  struck  out  of  the 
dictionary  of  mankind,  and  replaced  by  '  brother,'  can 
we  look  even  for  the  first  beginnings  of  our  science  (of 
language).  This  change  was  effected  by  Christianity. 
It  was  Christianity  which  first  broke  down  the  barriers 
between  Jew  and  Gentile,  between  Greek  and  barbar- 
ian, between  the  white  and  the  black.  Humanity  is  a 
word  which  you  look  for  iu  vain  in  Plato  or  Aristotle; 
the  idea  of  mankind  as  one  family,  as  the  children  of 
one  God,  is  an  idea  of  Christian  growth;  and  the 
science  of  mankind,  and  of  the  languages  of  mankind  is 


a  science  which,  without  Christianity,  would  never 
have  sprung  into  life.  When  people  had  been  taught 
to  look  upon  all  men  as  brethren,  then,  and  then  only, 
did  the  variety  of  human  speech  present  itself  as  a 
problem  that  called  for  a  solution  in  the  eyes  of 
thoughtful  observers ;  and  I  therefore  date  the  real 
beginning  of  the  science  of  language  from  the  first 
day  of  Pentecost."— (F.) 

2  EUicott  says  the  verb  evangelize  "  is  used  in  the  New 
Testament,  both  in  the  active  (Rev.  10:  7),  passive  (Gal. 
1:  11;  Heb.4:  6,  and  elsewhere),  and  middle.  In  the 
last  form  its  constructions  are  singularly  varied  :  it  is 
used  (a)  absolutely,  Rom.  15 :  20 ;  1  Cor.  1 :  17 ;  (6)  with  a 
dative  of  person,  Rom.  1 :  15;  (c)  with  an  accusative  of 
person.  Acts  16:  10 ;  1  Peter  1 :  12  ;  (rf)  with  an  accusa- 
tive of  thing,  Rom.  10:  15;  Gal.  1:  23;  (e)  with  an 
accusative  of  oprson  and  thing,  Acts  13:  32;  and  lastly 
(/) — the  most  common  construction — with  a  dative  of 
person  and  accusative  of  thing,  Luke  1 :  19,  and  else- 
where."—(F.) 


Ch.  I.] 


ROMANS. 


39 


16  For  I  aiu  not  ashamed  of  the  gospel  of  Christ:  for 
it  is  the  power  of  God  uuto  salvation  to  every  one  that 
believetli  ;  to  the  Jew  first,  and  also  to  the  Greek. 


ashamed  of  the  gospel :  for  it  is  the  power  of  God 
unto  salvation  to  every  one  that  believeth;  to  the 


there  and  preached  there  as  Christ's  ambassa- 
dor, but  "an  ambassador  in  bonds."  (Eph. 6:m.) 
This,    however,    did   not  greatly   hinder  liis 
evangelistic  work  in  that  place.     "  His  bonds 
became  manifest  in  Christ  in  the  whole  Pre- 
torium,"    yea,    even   in  the    ''household   of 
C;>3s:ir.''     (Phil.  1:  13;  4:  22.)     To  the  Jews  he  tes- 
tified  the   kingdom   of  God,    and   persuaded 
them  concerning  Jesus,  both  from  the  law  of 
Moses  and  from   the  prophets,  and   for  two 
■whole  years  he,  not  now  a  servant  only,  but  a 
chained  prisoner  of  Christ  Jesus,  "received 
all  thSit  went  in  unto  him,  preaching  the  king- 
dom of  God,  etc.,  with  all  confidence."]     So 
the  apostle  closes  this  second  portion  of  his 
Introduction  to  the  Ejnstle.     It  is  eminently 
adapted   to  conciliate  the  good  will   of   the 
Koman  disciples,  being  replete  with  modesty, 
kindness,  and  proof  of  his  unfeigned  regard 
for  them.     The  first  clause  of  the  succeeding 
verse  may  be  regarded  as  the  hinge,  on  which 
the  discourse  turns  from  what  is  introductory 
to  the  main  subject  of  the  Epistle,  compre- 
hensively expressed  in  the  second  clause. 
PartII.  Doctrinal.    (Ch.  1:  16-11:  36.) 
[Of  this  section  Dr.  Shedd  gives  the  follow- 
ing brief  analysis:    '■Necessity  of  gratuitous 
justification,   1-3:  20;    Nature  of  gratuitous 
justification,  8:  21.-4:  25;  Effects  of  gratui- 
tous justification,  5 :  1-8:  39;  Application  of 
gratuitous   justification,    9:    1-11:    36.'       Dr. 
GifFord,  in  the  "Bible  Commentary,"  states 
it  thus:    "(a)  The  theme;  1:  16,  17;    (b)  The 
universal  need  of  righteousness,  1:  18-3:  20; 
(c)  The  universality  of  righteousness  by  faith, 
3:  21-5:  21;  (d)  The  sanctification  of  the  be- 
liever, 6:  1-8:  39;  (e)  The  doctrine  reconciled 
with   Jewish   unbelief,    9:    1-11:    36."      Mr. 
Beet's  synopsis  is:   "(1)  All  are  guilty;   (2) 
J.istification  and  its  results,  3:  21-5:  21;   (3) 
The  new  life  in  Christ,   6:  1-8:  39;  (4)  Har- 
mony of  the  Old  and  the  New,  9:  1-11 :  36." 


De  Wette  furnishes  this  analysis:  "  Kight- 
eousness  through  faith,  1:  18-5:  21;  Moral 
eflTects  of  justification,  6:  1-8:  39;  Appendix: 
Lamentation,  Explanation,  and  Consolation 
concerning  the  exclusion  of  a  great  part  of 
the  Jews  from  the  Christian  salvation,  9:  1- 
11:  36."  Olshausen's  analysis  is  as  follows: 
"  Sinfulness  of  the  human  race,  1:  18-3:  20; 
The  new  way  of  salvation  by  Christ,  3:  21- 
5:  11;  The  vicarious  ofl5ce  of  Christ,  5:  12-7: 
6;  Stages  of  the  development  of  individuals 
and  of  the  universe,  7:  7-8:  39;  Relation  of  the 
Jews  and  Gentiles  to  the  new  way  of  salva- 
tion, 9:  1-11:  36.] 

16.  For  I  am  not  ashamed  of  the  gospel 
of  Christ :  for,  etc.  The  first  '  for '  introduces 
the  reason  why  he  had  long  desired  to  preach 
the  gospel  at  Rome;  the  second  'for'  intro- 
duces the  reason  why  he  was  not  ashamed  of 
it.  "I  am  not  ashamed  of  the  gospel  of 
Chri.st."  This  affirmation  was  perhaps  sug- 
gested by  his  mention  of  "  the  wise"  in  ver.  14, 
and  by  the  peculiar  position  of  the  Romans, 
as  citizens  of  the  great  capital  which  proudly 
styled  itself  "The  Mistress  of  the  World,"  very 
likely  with  a  tacit  remembrance,  also,  of  the 
ill  usage  which  he  had  received  in  other  popu- 
lous and  highly  civilized  cities,  as  Corinth, 
Athens,  Thessalonica,  and  Ephesus.  The 
words  'of  Christ'  are  wanting  in  the  oldest 
MSS.  [H  A  B  C  D*  G],  i  and  are  rejected  by 
most  critical  editors.  They  are  not  necessary 
to  the  sense,  as  there  is,  properly  speaking,  no 
other  gospel.  (Gai.  i:6, 7.)  ["Not  ashamed  of 
the  gospel."  Mark  the  boldness  of  the  apostle. 
"In  truth,"  says  Chalmers,  "it  is  often  a 
higher  effort  and  evidence  of  intrepidity  to 
front  disgrace  than  it  is  to  front  danger. 
There  is  many  a  man  who  would  march  up  to 
the  cannon's  mouth  for  the  honor  of  his 
country,  yet  would  not  face  the  laugh  of  his 
companions  for  the   honor  of  his  Saviour." 


1  The  first  four  MSS.  referred  to  (commonly  called  the 
Sinaitic,  the  Alexandrine,  the  Vatican,  and  the  Codex 
of  Ephraem),  contain  the  Gospels  and  the  Epistles — D, 
or  Codex  Bezae  containing  only  the  Gospels  and  the 
Acts.  It  should  be  remembered  that  D  E  F  G  and 
other  MSS.  of  the  Epistles  are  not  the  Gospel  uncials, 
and  are,  most  of  them,  considerably  later.  For  a  brief 
description  of  the  oldest  and  most  important  MSS., 
Bee  General  Introduction,  p.  36,  seq,  of  the   "Com- 


mentary on  Matthew."  See,  also,  Dr.  Mitchell's 
"  Critical  Handbook,"  p.  73 ;  Dr.  Schaff's  "  Com- 
panion of  the  Greek  Testament,"  p.  103;  G.  E.  Mer- 
rill's "  Story  of  the  Manuscripts  "  ;  Smith's  "  Bible 
Dictionary,"  Art.  New  Testament,  by  B.  F.  Westcotl ; 
Scrivener's  "  Introduction  to  the  Criticism  of  the  New 
Testament";  Warfleld's  "Textual  Criticism  of  the 
New  Testament,"  etc. — (F.) 


40 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  I. 


We  have  in  Paul's  assertion,  'I  am  not 
ashamed,'  a  figure  of  speech  by  which  less  is 
said  than  is  meant.  Instead  of  not  being 
ashamed  of  the  gospel,  he  gloried  in  it,  and  in 
the  suffering  endured  for  its  sake.  (coi.i:24.) 
Most  gladlj',  as  he  tells  the  Corinthians,  would 
he  spend  and  be  spent  for  their  souls  (2Cor. 
I-.':  15),  and  to  the  Philippians  he  says:  "If  I 
am  poured  out  (as  a  drink  offering)  upon  the 
sacrifice  and  service  of  your  faith,  I  joy  and 
rejoice  with  you  all."  (ReT.ver.,2:  n.)  It  did  re- 
quire great  courage  in  Paul  to  preach  the 
gospel  of  the  cross  to  the  then  heathen  world, 
even  as  it  requires  some  courage  in  Christian 
ministers,  and  especially  Christian  mission- 
aries, now.  Paul  knew  from  sad  experience 
that  the  heathen  priests  and  idol  worshipers 
everywhere  would  oppose  and  ridicule  the 
gospel  of  the  crucified  Galilean,  would  scout 
the  idea  of  giving  up  their  gods  and  their 
time-honored  religion,  their  sacrifices,  their 
festivals,  and  their  pageantry,  to  become  the 
fdllowers  of  a  Jew  who  had  suffered  an  igno- 
minious death,  and  the  adherents  of  a  new 
religion  which  had  neither  temples,  nor  altars, 
nor  statues,  nor  showy  ceremonials.  The 
city  where  Paul  wrote  this  letter  abounded  in 
"wise"  men,  or  seekers  after  wisdom — men 
of  culture  and  of  "advanced  thought,"  to 
whom  the  word  of  the  cross  which  he  preached 
was  foolishness,  (i  cr.  i :  is.)  Of  the  cultured 
Athenians,  some  mocked  at  Paul  as  being 
worse,  we  suppose,  than  a  "babbler"  when 
he  began  to  speak  to  them  of  the  risen  Gali- 
lean. (Acts  17: 18, 32.)  What  carcd  they,  to  use 
Festus'  language  in  part,  about  "one  Jesus," 
a  Jew  who  was  put  to  death  for  his  crimes, 
whom  Paul  affirmed  to  be  alive?  (Acts  25:  19.) 
To  the  Jew  at  Kome,  as  to  the  Jews  every- 
where, nothing  was  more  abhorrent  than  the 
thought  of  a  crucified  Nazarene  Messiah. 
And  what  could  the  religion  of  this  Jesus, 
who  was  crucified  as  a  malefactor  with  the  con- 
sent of  the  Procurator  Pilate,  be  to  the  Roman 
race  generally,  save  what  it  was  to  Suetonius, 
Tacitus,  and  Pliny,  a  wretched,  destructive, 
depraved,  and  immoderate  superstition?' 
What  sustained    Paul    in  the  preaching  of 


Christ  crucified  amid  all  these  discourage- 
ments, we  learn  from  the  following  clause.] 
For  it  is  the  power  of  God  unto  salva> 
tion.  Christ  himself  is  called  the  power  of 
God  in  1  Cor.  1 :  24.  Here  '  the  gosjiel '  is  so 
named,  and  in  1  Cor.  1:  18,  "the  preaching 
of  the  cross,"  which  is  only  another  name  for 
the  gospel.  Efficient  divine  power  resides  in 
Christ;  the  gospel,  or  the  preaching  of  the 
cross,  is  the  medium  through  which  he  exerts 
his  divine  power,  to  the  salvation  of  them  that 
believe.  [This  is  no  new  teaching  of  the  apos- 
tle. In  his  first  recorded  sermon,  preached  at 
Antioch  in  Pisidia,  on  his  first  missionary 
journey,  we  hear  him  proclaiming  remission 
of  sins  through  Christ,  and  justification  for 
all  believers.  (Acts  13 :  38, 39.)  Of  course,  in  the 
apostle's  view,  this  belief  or  faith — both  words 
being  etymologically  related  and  denoting 
the  same  thing — is  something  more  than  mere 
intellectual  belief.  It  is  a  confiding  trust  of 
the  heart,  and  it  works  through  love.]  God's 
power  is  often  terrible  in  nature  and  in  provi- 
dence, but  in  the  gospel  it  is  his  saving 
power.  What  an  encouragement  this  is  to 
the  weak  human  agents  that  proclaim  this 
gospel!  [Paul  elsewhere  (1  cor.  is:  1, 2)  speaks 
of  "the  gospel  through  which  ye  are  saved," 
and  James  (1:21)  of  the  "implanted  word 
which  is  able  to  save  your  souls."  (Revised 
Version.)  It  is  a  salvation  from  sin,  from  the 
wrath  of  God,  from  death,  and  from  perdition, 
partially  realized  in  the  present  (Lukei9:  9),  but 
fully  completed  only  in  the  future.  See  8: 
24 :  1  Thess.  5:8;  Heb.  1 :  14 ;  2  Tim.  2 :  10; 
4:18;  1  Peter  1 :  5  ;  1  Cor.  15 :  1,  2.  And  all 
this  the  gospel  of  Christ,  which  is  the  "mighty 
arm  of  God  rescuing  the  world  from  perdi- 
tion and  bringing  it  salvation"  (Godet),  is 
able  to  secure.  And  it  is  this  divine  and  sav- 
ing gospel,  and  not  worldly  wisdom,  phil- 
osophy, or  science,  which  the  ministers  of 
Christ  should  preach  without  fear  and  without 
shame,  even  in  this  age  of  boasted  culture  and 
liberal  thought,  of  skepticism  and  scoffing 
unbelief.  Let  no  one  be  ashamed  of  that 
gospel  which  speaks  to  our  guilty,  polluted 
souls  of   God's  pardoning    love   and   of   his 


iSnperstitio — "malefica,"  "exitiabills,"  "prava," 
"inimodica"  See  references  to  early  heathen  testi- 
nionv  in  "Biblical  Repository"  for  January,  1838; 
"Christian  Review"  for  January,  1859;  "German 
Selections,"  p.  459;   Dissertation  III,  of  "Wliiston's 


Appendix  to  Josephus  "  ;  Dr.  Mitchell's  "  Handbook,'' 
p.  17 ;  Farrar's  "  Life  of  Paul,"  Excursus  XV  ;  Giese- 
ler's  "  Ecclesiastical  History,"  33 ;  Rawlinson's  "  His- 
torical Evidences,"  and  all  works  which  treat  especially 
of  the  evidences  of  Chi  iatianity.— (F.) 


Ch.  L] 


ROMANS. 


41 


17  For  therein  is  the  righteousness  of  God  revealed  |  17  Jew  first,  and  also  to  the  Greek.    For  therein  is  r''- 

I        vealed  a  righteousness  of  God  I'rom  faith  unto  faith: 


sanctifying  grace— the  two  greatest  mercies  a 
lost  .sinner  can  ask  for  or  think  of.  To  the 
natural  man  this  gospel  may  seem  a  weak 
and  foolish  thing— the  things  of  the  Spirit 
being  foolishness  unto  him.  Yet  it  is  the 
power  and  the  wisdom  of  the  Almighty  and 
All-wise,  the  foolishness  of  whom,  to  use  the 
sublime  language  of  the  apostle,  is  wiser  than 
men,  and  the  weakness  of  whom  is  stronger 
than  men.  (icor.i:25.)  Paul  had  experienced 
the  saving  power  of  this  gospel,  and  this  expe- 
rience gave  him  a  conviction  of  its  reality, 
eflBcacy,  and  worth,  which  sustained  him  in 
preaching  it  even  to  a  gainsaying  world. 
Christ  was  to  him  peculiarly  the  power  of 
God,  for  he  had  seen  him  and  had  received 
him,  not  as  the  lowly  Nazarene  in  the  days 
of  his  humiliation,  but  in  his  exaltation  and 
glory,  at  the  sight  of  which  even  Christ's 
bosom  disciple,  John,  fell  at  his  feet  as  dead. 
"What  we  as  Christians  need,  especially  those 
of  us  who  have  been  "separated  unto  the 
gospel  of  God,''  is  to  rely,  not  on  our  learn- 
ing and  culture,  not  on  the  rareness  and  rich- 
ness of  our  style,  or  on  our  depth  of  thought— 
the  excellency  of  our  words,  or  of  our  wis- 
dom, which  we  may  well  imagine  to  be  fool- 
ishness with  God— but  on  the  omnipotence  of 
our  exalted  Redeemer  and  on  the  divine 
power  of  gospel  truth  made  efficacious  by  the 
Holy  Spirit.  Without  the  Spirit's  aid  to 
bless  the  truth  and  give  it  power,  it  were  as 
much  in  vain  for  the  minister  of  the  gospel  to 
preach  to  those  who  are  dead  in  trespasses  and 
in  sins  as  for  him  to  go  into  the  burying 
ground  and  bid  the  sleeping  dead  rise  from 
their  graves.  If  we  can  testify  to  this  divine 
power  from  our  own  experience,  and  if  we 
can  preach  this  truth  in  a  plain,  earnest, 
tender,  sympathizing  manner,  we  may  hope, 
through  God's  blessing,  to  see  the  gospel's 
saving  efficacy  in  the  conversion  of  sinners.] 
There  is  a  special  propriety  in  Paul's  empha- 
sizing the  poioer  of  the  gospel  in  writing  to 
the  Romans,  as  there  is  in  his  emphasizing 
wisdom  also  in  writing  to  the  Greeks,  (i  Cor.  i: 
J2-24.)    Alford  well  remarks,  that  this  clause 


comprehends  the  subject,  and  might  not  in- 
aptly form  the  title  of  the  Epistle:  'The 
Gospel  is  the  Power  of  God  unto  Salvation 
to  Every  One  that  Believeth.'  [Philippi  gives 
the  theme  of  the  Epistle  in  these  words:  The 
righteousness  which  avails  before  God  comes 
to  all  men  from  faith  only,  and  only  this 
righteousness  of  faith  has  salvation  or  life  for 
its  result.]  The  universality  implied  in  'every 
one'  in  opposition  to  Jewish  exclusiveness 
(1:13-3:  2o),  the  Condition  necessitated  in  the 
limiting  clause,  that  believeth  [in  opposition 
to  Jewish  legalism]  (3:  21-5:  11),  and  'the  power 
of  God'  acting  'unto  salvation'  (5: 12-8:  39), 
are  the  great  subjects  treated  of  in  the  first 
half  of  the  Epistle.  Observe  how  the  litiiita- 
tion  in  respect  to  character  is  set  over  against 
the  universality  AiionW  national  and  external 
distinctions.  So  it  is  generally  in  the  New 
Testament,  and  emphatically  in  that  remark- 
able passage  which  has  been  called  "the 
gospel  '"  miniature."  (Johu3:i6.)  To  the 
Jew  first,  and  also  to  the  Greek.'  'To 
the  Jew '  first  in  order  by  divine  appointment, 
and  first  in  claim  by  divine  promise  ;  but  w4tk>l 
no  other  precedence  or  pre-eminence.  Com- 
pare 3:  1,  2,  9,  and  John  4:  22.  'The  Greek' 
is  here  put  comprehensively  for  the  Gentile. 
Greek  was  the  prevailing  language  of  the 
Gentile  world  in  those  parts  adjacent,  and 
most  familiar  to  the  Jews.  Indeed,  the  very 
word  here  used  is  translated  "Gentile"  in 
about  one-third  of  the  places  where  it  occurs. 
See  John  7:  35,  twice;  Rom.  2:  9,  10;  3:  9;  1 
Cor.  10:  32;  12:  13.  [A  single  Gentile  must  be 
denoted  by  the  word  "  Greek,"  as  the  singular 
of  "  Gentiles  "  (ethnos)  is  not  used  of  an  indi- 
vidual. "Greeks"  also  might  denote  individ- 
ual Gentiles,  while  "Gentiles"  proper  would 
be  used  of  a  class  collectively.] 

17.  For  therein  is  the  righteonsness  of 
God  revealed.  [For  similar  phraseologj', 
see  Ps.  98:  2;  in  the  Septuagint,  Ps.  97:  2.] 
'For'  illustrates  and  confirms  the  .statement 
of  ver.  16.  The  gospel  is  the  power  of  God 
unto  salvation,  because  it  reveals  'the  right- 
eousness of  God.'     Hence  the  importance  of 


1  These  terras  "  embrace  all  nations,  from  the  Jewish  .  ver.  14.    Meyer  says  they  "  denote  the  equality  of  what 
standpoint,  as  Greeks  and  Barbarians  (ver.  14)  do  from  |  is  added." — (F.) 
the  Grecian."    (De  Wette.)    On  the  force  of  re  /col,  see  I 


42 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  I. 


understanding  aright  what  is  meant  by  this 
expression  ;  it  is,  more  than  any  other  single 
expression,  the  ke^'  to  this  Epistle,  and, in  fact, 
to  the  whole  gospel  as  a  saving  power.  What, 
then,  are  we  to  understand  here  by  '  the  right- 
eousness of  God'?^  1.  It  plainly  does  not 
denote  the  divine  righteousness  as  a  personal 
attribute  of  God,  as  it  does  in  James  1:  20; 
Eom.  3  :  5,  25,  26.  It  is  not  this  which  makes 
the  gospel  a  saving  divine  power;  nor  is  it 
this  which  is  spoken  of  in  Hab.  2:  4.  It  is 
not  this  to  which  the  description  in  the  con- 
text, and  in  other  parts  of  this  Epistle,  is 
applicable.  The  righteousness  here  referred 
to  is  a  gift  from  God  to  men.  See  5:  17; 
Phil.  3:9.  It  is  conditioned  on  faith.  [As 
here  indicated,  it  flows  from  faith.]  This 
condition  is  variously  expressed."  It  is  evi- 
dent that  men,  then,  not  God,  are  the  subjects 
of  whom  this  righteousness  is  predicated. 

2.  It  plainly  is  not  the  moral  rectitude  in 
man  which  the  law  of  God  requires:  for  it  is 
not  by  the  law.  Gal.  2:  21  (5ia) ;  3:  21  («), 
[orz)i  tlielaw,  Phil.  3:  6]  but  without  the  law, 
iRom.  3:  21  (xiopi?) ;  whereas  the  moral  recti- 
tude which  God  requires  does  consist  precisely 
in  conformitj'  to  his  law  ;  his  law  is  the  stand- 
ard by  which  it  is  measured.  Again,  this 
righteousness  is  described  as  not  being  our 
own,  but  broadly  contrasted  with  our  own 
righteousness,  which  is  by  the  law.   (Rom.  9:3032 ; 

10  :  3,  5,  6  ;  Gal.  2  :  16  ;  Pliil.  3:9.) 

3.  It  is,  then,  the  righteousness  of  God,  as 
proceeding  from  him,  and  accepted  by  him 
(2: 13;  3: 20;  Gal. 3 :  ii)  ;  and  it  is  also  no  Icss  truly 
the  righteousness  of  the  believing  man,  as 
provided  for  him,  given  to  him,  and  condi- 
tioned on  his  faith.     In  short,  it  is  very  nearly 


equivalent  to  justification.  [Winer  notices 
two  interpretations  of  this  phrase:  that  of 
Luther  (which  Philippi  approves):  the  right- 
eousness which  avails  before  God  (Rom. 2:  is;  3: 
20;  Gai.3:  11),  and  "the  righteousness  which 
God  imparts."  He  deems  both  appropriate 
in  their  right  connections,  but  prefers  the 
latter.  Dr.  Hodge  says  :  "The  gospel  reveals 
a  righteousness  which  God  gives  and  which 
he  approves."  DeWettesays:  "God  justifies 
for  Christ's  sake,  on  condition  of  faith  in  him 
as  mediator;  the  result  of  his  justification  is 
righteousness  from  faith,  and,  because  he  irri- 
parts  this  freely,  it  is  righteousness  of  God 
(genitive  subjective)  or,  as  in  Phil.  3:  9,  from 
God."  Both  nouns  are  without  the  article, 
yet  the  one  is  made  sufficiently  definite  hy  the 
other.  It  is  God's  righteousness  which  is 
being  revealed  in  an:l  by  the  gospel.  This 
righteousness,  which  comes  from  God  through 
faith,  and  which  is  indeed  a  "gift"  of  God  to 
us  (5:  n),  in  virtue  of  which  we,  though 
guilty  in  ourselves,  are  justified  by  God  and 
shall  stand  acquitted  in  the  judgment  as 
righteous,  is  opposed  to  a  righteousness  which 
is  originated  by  ourselves,  which  is  our  own, 
which  is  derived  not  from  faith  and  through 
grace,  but  "from  works"  and   "from  law." 

(Phil.  3:9;  Rom.  10:3:  11:6;  Gal.  2:16;  3:21.)     The  right- 

eousness,  then,  which  God  imparts  and  ap- 
proves, consists  chiefly  in  faith  or  trust  in  the 
Kedeemer,  and  with  this  faith  are  joined  both 
love  and  obedience;  but  our  obedience  and 
love  and  faith  are  all  imperfect,  and  even 
faith  itself  can  be  counted  as  righteousness 
only  "  according  to  grace."]  ^ 

4.  This    explanation    of   the    expres.sion  is 
further  confirmed  by  the  usage  of  the  verb 


1  The  expression  occurs  twelve  times  in  the  New 
Testament  (including  several  instances  of  "  Am  right- 
eousness," where  the  pronoun  plainly  refers  to  God)  '■ 
nine  times  in  Paul's  ejiistles  (eight  times  in  Romans, 
five  times  in  chapter  third) — namely,  Matt.  6:  33; 
Rom.  1:  17;  3:  5,  21,  22,  2.^,  26;  10:  3,  twice;  2  Cor- 
5:  21;  James  1:  20;  2  Peter  1:  1.  ["  Righteonsness 
(5iKaioo-ui'»))  occurs  in  the  New  Testament  ninety-two 
times,  and  is  always  so  rendered  in  the  Common  Ver- 
sion ;  Si'iciio?  eighty-one  times,  and  is  rendered  righteous 
forty  time".  _;■«.?<  thirty-five  times,  right  five  timos,  meet 
once;  SiKaiiaiia  occurs  ten  times,  and  is  rendered  right- 
eoiisness  four  times,  jiistifiMition  once,  jtidgmeni  once, 
and  in  the  plural,  ordivnvcp^  three  times,  jvdgvien/s 
once  ;  hiKaiiatji.'.  occurs  twice,  and  is  rendered  justifica- 
tion."   (Prof.  Boise's  "  Notes  on  Romans.")]— (F.) 


2  It  is  expressed  sometimes  simply  by  the  genitive 
case,  as  in  4:  11,  13;  sometimes  by  various  prepositions 
in  the  original,  as  €«  9:  30;  10:  6;  6ia3:  22;  Phil.  3:  9; 
Kara  Heb.  11:  7;  ejri  Phil  3:9.  It  is  well  to  mark 
with  what  fullness  and  emphasis  this  condition  is 
expressed,  particularly  in  3:  22;  Phil.  3:  9. — (F.) 

3'- The  gospel  makes  known  both  the  accomplished 
work  of  redemption  itself  and  the  means  whereby  man 
appropriates  the  redemption — namely,  faith  in  Christ 
which,  imputed  to  him  as  righteousness  (4 :  5),  causes 
man  to  be  regarded  and  treated  by  God  out  of  grace 
and  gratuitously  (3:  24)  as  righteous,  so  that  he,  like 
one  who  has  perfectly  obeyed  the  law,  is  certain 
of  the  Messianic  bliss  destined  for  the  righteous." 
(Meyer.)— (F.) 


Ch.  I] 


ROMANS. 


43 


from  faith  to  faith  :  as  it  is  written,  The  just  shall  live 
by  faith. 


as  it  is  written,  But  the  righteous  shall  live  from 
faith. 


to  justify,  or  make  righteous,  in  such  pas- 
sages as  3:  26;  8:33;  Gal.  3:  11.  ["The  verb 
to  justify  (Sifcaidcu)  occurs  forty  times  in  the 
New  Testament,  twenty-seven  times  in  Paul's 
epistles.  .  .  .  It  denotes  an  act  of  jurisdiction 
— the  pronouncing  of  a  sentence,  not  the  in- 
fusion of  a  quality.  .  .  .  There  is,  to  my 
knowledge,  no  pa-sage  in  the  New  Testament, 
and  only  two  or  three  in  the  Septuagint  where 
this  verb  means  to  make  just,  or  lead  to  right- 
eousni'ss."  (Schaff. )  '' Dikaioun,  even  as 
used  by  Paul,  denotes  nothing  else  than  the 
judicial  net  of  God  whereby  man  is  pro- 
nounce ,1  free  from  guilt  and  punishment,  and 
is  thus  recognized  or  represented- as  dikaios, 
righteous."  (Cremer.)  "Z)iA:«ioMM  is  not  only 
negative,  to  acquit,  but  also  positive,  to  de- 
clare righteous,  but  never  to  make  righteous." 
(DeWette.)  It  is  to  be  noticed  that  'to  justify  ' 
implies  something  more  than  to  pardon.  A 
pardoned  criminal  is  never  said  to  be  justified. 
Indeed,  our  earthly  courts  know  nothing 
about  justifying  one  who  has  been  guilty. 
"Pardon  and  justification,  therefore,  are  es- 
sentially diflTerent.  The  one  is  the  remission 
of  punishment,  the  other  is  a  declaration  that 
no  ground  for  the  infliction  of  punishment 
exists."     (Hodge.)] 

Compare,  further,  SchaflF's  elaborate  and 
admirable  note  on  3:  24,  in  Lange's  Commen- 
tary. Also  tlie'foUowing  from  Mej'crand  De 
Wette.  "  Kightness  with  God — the  relation  of 
being  right  into  which  man  is  put  by  God  (i.  e., 
by  an  act  of  God  declaring  him  righteous)." 
(Meyer.)  "Justification  is  properly  after  the 
old  Protestant  theologians  to  be  taken  in  a 
firensic  sense — that  is,  imputatively.  .  .  .  All 
interpretations  which  overlook  the  fact  of  im- 
putation are  erroneous."     (DeWette.) 

Therein  is  revealed.  '  Therein  '—that  is. 
in  the  gospel.  This  righteousness  was  indeed 
foreshadowed  in  the  Old  Testament,  but  not 
revealed,  unveiled,  until  gospel  times.  The 
present  tense  denotes  a  continual  unfolding 
of  this  righteousness  in  the  pages  of  the  New 
Testament  [nr  by  the  preaching  of  the  apos- 
tles. (A.  H.)]  From  faith  to  faith.  There 
are  many  ingenious  wa^'s  of  explaining  this 
phrase,  such  as  faitli  in  the  Old  Testament 
first,  then  in  the  New;  from  lower  degrees  of 
faith  to  higher,   etc.  ;    but  they   are  all  too 


elaborate  and  over  nice.     [Meyer  seems  to 
favor  the  last  view,  and  refers  in  support  of  it 
to  2  Cor.  2:   16.    "from  life  unto   life,"    etc. 
His  statement  is  tliat  "  the  revelation  spoken 
of  proceeds  from  faith,  and  is  designed  to  pro- 
duce faith."     But  the  idea  of  an  advance  in 
faith  seems  somewhat  irrelevant  to  the  apos- 
tle's argument.     The  majority  of  commenta- 
tors interpret  it  in   the   light  of  3:   22,   and 
regard  this  righteousness  which  comes  from 
fsiith,  as  also  a  gift  to  faitli,  or  to  believers. 
"This  righteousness  proceeds  from  faith,  and 
belongs   to   faith."      (Ripley.)      De   Wette, 
Meyer  and  Alford  versus  Philippi  and  others, 
connect  f7'07n  faith  with  the  verb  is  revealed, 
rather  than  with  righteousness;  yet  see  10:  6, 
"the   righteousness   which   is   from    faith"; 
also  3:  22;   Phil.  3:  9,   "the  righteousness  of 
God  through  faith,"  and  "the  righteousness 
from  God   upon  faith."     This  view  is  given 
substantially    in    Godet's    rendering:    God's 
righteousness  is    revealed    (as    being)    from 
faith.]     It  is  better  perhaps    to   regard    the 
whole  expression  as  simply  intensive,  without 
attempting  too  minute  an  analysis  of  it.     It  is 
all  of  faith,  "from  stem  to  stern"  (prora  et 
puppis),  as  Bengel  says,  in  his  own  terse  and 
pithy   way.      [According  to   Pauline   usage, 
faith  per  se  is  not  righteousness  in  us,  for  if  so, 
our  righteousness  would  be  very  imperfect; 
nor  is  it  represented  as  meritorious.     We  are 
justified  by  grace  through  faith,  but  never  is 
it  said  that  we  are  justified  on  account  of  faith. 
We  are  justified  gratuitously  (s:  24),  and  our 
faith  is  reckoned  for  righteousness  only  in  the 
way  of  grace.     "It  is  the  grace  of  God  which 
leads  him  to  justify  any.    Even  faith  in  Christ 
has  no  virtue  in  itself.     As  an  aflfection  or  act 
of  the  soul,  it  is  inferior  to  love;  and  neither 
of  them  is  half  as  steady  or  fervid  as  it  ought 
to  be.    As  strongly  as  possible,  therefore,  does 
Paul  assert  that  justification  is  an  act  of  free 
grace  to  the  sinner  on  thep;irt  of  God.    Hence, 
faith  does  not  justify  as  being  in  itself  right- 
eousness, obedience,  a  germ  of  righteousness, 
or  an  equivalent  for  obedience,  but  as  a  total 
renunciation  of  all  claim  to  personal  righfeous- 
nei^s  and  a  sole  reliance  vpon  Christ  for  accept- 
ance with  God.    '  The  glory  of  faith  is  that  its 
utter  emptiness  opens  to  receive  consummate 
good.'"      Hoveys    "Manual   of  Systematic 


44 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  I. 


Theology,"  pp.  266,  268.]  As  it  is  written, 
The  just  shall  live  by  faith.  The  quo- 
tation from  Hab.  2 :  4  is  repeated  in  Gal. 
3:  11  and  Heb.  10:  38.  By  a  slight  trans- 
position the  passage  might  be  made  to  read, 
the  just  (or  justiHed)  by  faith — shall  live. 
And  tliis  way  of  connecting  the  words  might 
seem  to  give  them  additional  pertinency  in 
the  present  case ;  but  when  we  examine  the 
original  passage,  as  it  is  found  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, such  an  arrangement  of  the  words, 
though  adopted  by  Meyer  and  Winer,  seems 
hardly'  consistent  with  the  Hebrew  text.  [As 
it  is  written.  Literally,  as  it  has  been  writ- 
ten (and  remains  so).  While  there  are  no 
quotations  from  the  Old  Testament  in  First 
and  Second  Thessalonians,  Philippians,  Colos- 
sians  (the  letters  to  these  churches  being  "in- 
tended in  tl.e  main  for  Gentile  Christians" — 
rarrar),they  are  very  abundant  in  this  Epistle, 
and  are  chiefly  introduced  (nineteen  times) 
by  the  above  formula.  Farrar  says:  "There 
are  about  two  hundred  and  seventy-eight 
quotations  from  the  Old  Testament  in  the 
New.  Of  these,  fifty-three  are  identical  in 
the  Hebrew,  Septuagint,  and  New  Testament. 
In  ten  the  Septuagint  is  correctly  altered;  in 
seventy-six  it  is  altered  incorrectly — i.  e,,  into 
greater  divergence  from  the  Hebrew;  in 
thirty-seven  it  is  accepted  where  it  differs 
from  the  Hebrew;  in  ninety-nine  all  three 
diifer,  and  there  are  three  doubtful  allusions." 
See  also  Dr.  SchaflT's  "Companion  to  the 
Greek  Testament,"  page  24.  In  Dr.  S.  David- 
son's "Sacred  Hermeneutics,"  two  hundred 
and  fifty-five  quotations  are  given  in  Hebrew, 
in  the  Greek  of  the  Septuagint  and  of  the 
New  Testament,  and  in  English.  Prof.  Stuart 
reckons  up  five  hundred  and  three  quotations 
and  allusions,  and  remarks  that  even  this  list 
"is  far  from  comprehending  all  of  this  nature 
which  the  New  Testament  contains.  The 
truth  is,  there  is  not  a  page,  nor  even  a  para- 
graph of  any  considerable  length,  belonging 
to  the  New  Testament,  which  does  not  bear 


the  impress  of  the  Old  Testament  upon  it." 
Davidson  finds  fifty-one  quotations  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans;  Stuart  gives  fifty- 
eight  quotations  and  allusions,  while  others 
put  the  number  still  higher.  The  largest 
number  we  have  seen,  if  we  mistake  not,  is 
given  on  pages  180  and  181  of  Westcott  and 
Hort's  "Introduction  to  the  New  Testament 
in  Greek."  Paul,  according  to  Dr.  Schaff, 
"usually  agrees  with  the  Septuagint,  except 
when  he  freely  quotes  from  memory,  or  adapts 
the  text  to  his  argument."'  Sometimes  we 
have  Moses  saith,  or  Isaiah  saith,  or  the  Scrip- 
ture saith,  but  never  the  especial  gospel  for- 
mula— "that it  might  be  fulfilled."  The  New 
Testament  writers  and  our  divine  Saviour  him- 
self found,  it  must  be  conceded,  more  of  Christ 
and  the  gospel  in  the  Old  Testament  than  we 
should  naturally  have  expected  to  find,  and 
this  shows  us  that  the  Old  Testament  was 
divinely  designed  to  prefigure  and  illustrate 
the  ^ew.  (See  in  "Christian  Review,"  for 
April,  1856,  an  article  by  the  writer,  entitled, 
"Christ  in  the  Old  Testament.")  "  This  retro- 
spective use  of  the  Old  Testament,"  sa3'3 
Olshausen,  "is  rather  to  be  derived  from  that 
Scriptural,  fundamental  view  of  it,  which 
supposes  that  in  it  all  the  germs  of  the  New 
Testament  are  already  really  contained,  and 
that,  therefore,  the  New  Testament  is  only 
the  fulfilling  of  the  Old."  Similarly,  Elli- 
cott:  "  This  typical  or  allegorical  interpreta- 
tion is  neither  arbitrary  nor  of  mere  Rabbini- 
cal origin  "  [Rabbinisch-typischer  Interpreta- 
tionsweise. — Meyer],  "but  is  to  be  referred  to 
the  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Spirit  under  which 
the  apostle  gives  the  literal  meaning  of  the 
words  their  fuller  and  deeper  application." 
The  Hebrew  of  the  passage  quoted  reads, 
"  The  just  by  his  faithfulness  shall  live  "  ;  the 
Septuagint  Version,  "The  just  shall  live  by 
my  faith  "  ;  while  the  author  of  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews  has  it,  according  to  the  Re- 
vised Version,  "My  righteous  one  shall  live 
by  faith."  ^    As  the  faith  of  the  righteous  one 


1  See  also  "  Quotations  in  the  New  Testament,"  by  C. 
H.  Toy,  D.  D.,  1884,  for  an  exliaustive  catalogue  of  the 
citations  and  references  in  the  New  Testament. — A.  H- 

2  Aticaio?,  just  or  righteous,  "  an  adjective  lying  be 
tween  the  verb  (5iKaiow,  to  justify)  and  the  substantive 
(6i«aio<ru>'T),  righteousness),  and  taking  its  color,  more 
or  less  in  different  instances,  from  either.  It  is  to  be 
observed  that  we  do  not  possess  in  English  a  family  of 


cognate,  native  words  to  express  these  Greek  words, 
but  are  obliged  to  render  the  verb  by  the  Latin  deriva- 
tive Jm.?/;/^,  while  the  kindred  adjective  and  substantive 
are  translated  by  the  Saxon  righteous  and  righteousness. 
A  parallel  difficulty  arises  in  the  case  of  the  word." 
jrt<TTts  and  ffto-Teiid),  rendered  by  the  Latin /a!7A  and  the 
Saxon  believe."—^'  The  Five  Clergymen."— (F.) 


Ch.  I.] 


ROMANS. 


45 


18  For  the  wrath  of  God  is  revealed  from  heaven 
agaiust  all  ungodliness  and  unrighteousness  of  men, 
who  hold  the  truth  in  unrighteousness ; 


18      For  ithe  wrath , of  God  is  revealed  from  heaven 
agaiust  all  ungodliness  and  unrighteousness  of  men, 


1  Or,  a  wrath. 


in  Habakkuk  may  be  his  trustworthiness,  or 
"faith  which  may  be  relied  on,  not  the  faith 
■which  relies,"  so  some  (as  Farrar)  would 
regard  this  quotation  as  little  more  than  an 
accommodation  of  the  literal  truth  to  the 
subject  in  hand.  Yet  there  is,  as  Bishop 
Li^litfoot  remarks  (on  Gal.  3:  11,  and  page 
155),  "a  close  moral  affinity  between  trust- 
wnriliiness  and  trustfulness,"  or  faith,  the 
former  at  times  approaching  "near  to  the 
active  sense;  for  constancy  under  temptation 
or  danger,  with  an  Israelite,  could  only  spring 
from  reliance  on  Jehovah."  Delitzsch,  as 
quoted  by  Philippi,  affirms  that  "the  apostle 
brings  nothing  to  this  passage  that  it  does  not 
contain.  All  that  he  does  is  to  set  its  meaning 
— that  the  life  of  the  righteous  comes  from 
faith— in  the  light  of  the  New  Testament." 
And  Meyer  says:  "This  faithfulness  in  the 
prophet's  sense  and  the  faith  in  the  Christian 
sense  have  the  same  fundamental  idea — trust- 
ful self-surrender  to  God."  It  was  this  pass- 
age of  divine  truth  which  brought  light  and 
peace  to  the  mind  of  Luther,  and  gave  him  to 
the  cause  of  the  Reformation.  In  these  last 
two  verses  we  have  a  concise  answer^which 
only  the  Holy  Spirit  could  give— to  that  most 
momentous  question  :  "How  can  man  be  just 
with  God?"i] 

18.  For  the  wrath  of  God  is  revealed  from 
heaven.  ["  An  exordium  terrible  as  light- 
ning." (Melancthon.)  Underthegeneral divis- 
ion :  "All  are  guilty,"  Mr.  Beet  gives  the 
following  sub-divisions:  "For  God  is  angry 
with  all  sin  (i :  18-32) ;  without  respect  of  persons 
(2:1-11);  of  this  the  giving  of  the  law  is  no 
disproof  (2:  12-24) ;  nor  is  the  rite  of  circumcision 
(2:25-29);  yet  the  Jcws  have  real  advantages 
(s:  1-9)  ;  but  are  condemned  by  their  own  law. 


(3:  10-20.)"]  The  gospel  way  of  justification  by 
faith  in  Christ  is  man's  only  hope;  'for,' 
where  there  is  no  faith,  there  is  no  revelation 
of  the  righteousness  of  God,  but  a  revelation 
of  'the  wrath  of  God'  instead.  [According 
to  Godet,  the  transition  from  ver.  17,  indicated 
by /or  is  this:  "  There  is  a  revelation  of  right- 
eousness bj'  the  gospel,  because  there  is  a  rev- 
elation of  wrath  on  the  whole  world."  Simi- 
larly De  Wette :  "The  righteousness  of  God 
(by  which  we  are  justified)  presupposes  Cxod's 
wrath  against  sinners,  or  the  unworthiness  of 
men."  The  verb  here,  as  in  the  preceding 
verse,  is  in  the  present  tense,  which  denotes 
something  constant  or  habitual,  and  is  em- 
phatic by  position.  "Generally,"  says  Kiih- 
ner,  "both  the  first  and  last  place  in  a  sen- 
tence is  considered  emphatic,  when  words 
stand  there  which,  according  to  the  usual 
arrangement,  would  have  a  different  posi- 
tion."] The  same  phrase,  '  is  revealed,'  is 
used  here  as  in  the  preceding  verse :  but 
whilst  the  medium  of  revelation  in  the  pre- 
ceding case  is  limited  to  the  gospel  by  the 
expression,  'therein,'  here  there  is  a  more 
comprehensive  revelation,  not  only  in  the  gos- 
pel, but  also  in  man's  moral  nature,  and  in 
divine  providence.  [Compare  ver.  24,  seq.; 
also  2:5.]  In  what  sense  is  wrath  ascribed' to 
God?  There  is  not  in  him  any  violent  pertur- 
bation of  feeling,  such  as  usually  accompanies 
wrath  in  man;  but  a  real,  unchangeable, 
intense  displeasure  against  sin,  having  a  neces- 
sary connection  with  his  love,  and  his  approval 
of  righteousness.  "  If  God  is  not  angry  with 
the  ungodly  and  unrighteous,  neither  can  he 
have  any  pleasure  in  the  pious  and  the  right- 
eous; for  in  regard  to  things  of  an  opposite 
nature,  he  must  be  affected   by  both   or  by 


'  "  If  we  had  retained  our  original  righteousness,  ju3- 
tice itself  would  have  justified  us;  but,  having  sinned, 
the  question, '  How  shall  man  be  justified  with  God?' 
is  too  difficult  for  created  wisdom  to  solve.  Whatever 
delight  the  Creator  takes  in  honoring  and  rewarding 
righteousness,  there  is  none  left  in  this  apostate  world 
for  him  to  honor  or  reward.  'All  have  sinned  and 
come  short  of  the  glory  of  God.'  If  any  child  of  Adam, 
therefore,  be  now  accepted  and  rewarded  as  righteous, 
it  must  be  on  entirely  different  ground  from  that  of  his 
own  righteousness.    What  ground  this  could  be  God 


only  knew."  (A.  Fuller.)  This  writer  further  notices 
how  justification  in  the  sight  of  God  must  diflor  from 
justification  among  men.  Justification  in  human  courts 
supposes  a  man  to  have  been  innocent  rather  than 
guilty,  but  justification  by  grace  supposes  the  man  to 
be  guilty,  and  to  have  need  of  pardon.  This  pardon 
removes  the  curse,  while  justification  confers  the  bless- 
ing of  eternal  life,  and  both  are,  through  abounding 
grace  in  Jesns  Christ,  secured  to  those  who  in  them- 
selves are  only  deserving  of  death.— (F.) 


46 


ROxMANS. 


[Ch.  I. 


neither."  (Lactantius.)  Compare  Ps.  11:  5-7; 
45:  6,  7.  'Is  revealed  from"  heaven.'  It 
enters  into  men's  minds  as  a  persuasion  which 
results,  not  from  their  own  wills,  but  from  a 
divine  constitution  of  things.  It  is  involuntary 
and  iiieflfaceable.  It  is  not  the  offspring  of  a 
distempered  fancj',  nor  an  invention  of  crafty 
priests  or  crafty  kings,  that  they  may  excite 
men's  fears,  and  so  manage  them  the  more 
easily  for  their  own  advantage:  but  it  is  re- 
vealed from  heaven,  from  the  abode  of  infin- 
ite wisdom  and  love.  That  is  the  place  whence 
this  stern  doctrine  of  divine  retribution  orig- 
inates. The  wrath  that  condemns  comes  down 
from  above  upon  men  just  as  truly  as  the 
righteousness  that  justifies.  [This  wrath, 
according  to  Philippi,  "denotes  an  inner  de- 
termination of  the  divine  nature  itself,  the 
inwardly  energetic  antagonism  and  repellant 
force  of  his  holiness  in  relation  to  human  sin, 
which  divine  afi"ection,  indeed,  finds  its  ex- 
pression in  the  infliction  of  punishment."  Our 
merciful  Saviour,  who  came  from  heaven, 
himself  spoke  of  the  wrath  of  God  as  abiding 
on  the  unbeliever.  'From  heaven'  is  this 
wrath  revealed,  because  there  "the  Lord  hath 
prepared  his  throne,"  and  thence  "his  judg- 
ments go  forth  as  lightning."  See  "Bible 
Commentary."  De  Wette  and  Meyer  suppose 
this  revelation  of  wrath  'from  heaven 'con- 
sists in  visible  punishments  and  judgments 
inflicted  on  transgressors.  Philippi,  on  the 
other  hand,  asserts  that  what  is  revealed  by 
God  or  from  heaven  "always  refers  in  the 
New  Testament  to  an  extraordinary  revela- 
tion through  miraculous  acts,  through  the 
words  of  prophets  and  apostles,  or  inwardly 
through  the  Spirit  of  God."  The  verb  in  the 
present  tense  is,  in  his  view,  used  for  the 
future,  and  this  revelation  of  wrath  will  take 
place  in  "the  day  of  wrath  and  revelation  of 
the  righteous  judgment  of  God."  (2: 5.)  Yet 
we  must  say  that  God's  wrath,  in  some  form 
or  other,  has  always  been  manifested  against 
all  ungodliness  and  iniquity.]  Against  all 
ungodliness  and  unrighteousness  of  men. 
The  order  of  the  words  is  significant.  Against 
'ungodliness'  first.  The  whole  development  of 


the  argument  in  the  remainder  of  this  chapter 
empliasizes  this  order.  It  is,  moreover,  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  whole  tenor  of  Scripture. 
Compare  Matt.  6:  33;  22:  36-40.  Note  the 
comprehensiveness  of  the  expression  :  against 
every  kind  and  every  degree,  both  of  irre- 
ligion  and  immorality.  How  little  do  men  in 
general  regard  the  mere  absence  of  a  religious 
reverence  for  God  as  justly  exposing  them  to 
his  wrath!  [By  the  use  of  the  term  'men,' the 
correlative  of 'God,'  theapostle  would  indicate 
"the  a?<(/acify  of  this  God-opposing  conduct." 
(Meyer.)  How  holy  is  our  God,  and  how 
hateful  to  him  is  sin  that  man's  ungodliness 
and  unrighteousness,  his  "sins  against  the 
first  and  the  second  table"  (Philippi),  should 
call  forth  from  him,  whose  name  and  nature 
is  love,  a  revelation  of  his  wrath  and  of  his 
righteous  judgment  1  We  may  remark  that, 
in  this  chapter  generally,  special  reference  is 
had  to  the  Gentiles,  and  not  until  the  next 
chapter  do  the  Jews  come  under  considera- 
tion. Even  the  Gentiles  repress  the  truth  in 
unrighteousness  and  are  conscious  of  deserving 
the  wrath  of  God.]  Who  hold  the  truth  in 
unrighteousness.  The  compound  verb  here 
used  means  not  simply  to  hold,  but  to  hold 
fast,  as  in  Luke  8:  15  (translated  keep);  1 
Thess.  5:  21 ;  Heb.  3:  6,  14;  10  :  23,  or  to  hold 
back,  hold  down,  repress,  as  in  Luke  4:  42 
(translated  stayed);  Eom.  7:  6  (translated 
held);  Philem.  13  (translated  re^ainerfj.  This 
last  sense  is  the  only  appropriate  one  here: 
men  hold  down,  as  in  the  Revised  Version, 
repress  religious  truth  by  living  'in  unright- 
eousness.' Their  practical  unrighteousness 
reacts  upon  the  inward  man,  blinding  the 
understanding,  hardening  the  heart,  stupefy- 
ing the  conscience.  That  this  is  the  true 
meaning  of  the  word,  here  translated  Jiold  is 
recognized  by  the  best  translators  and  com- 
mentators.i  [Bengel:  "Truth  in  the  mind 
strives  and  urges,  but  man  impedes  it."  The 
Bible  Commentary  observes  here  the  contrast 
that  the  power  unto  salvation  is  for  "every 
one  that  believeth  "  ;  the  wrath  is  against  them 
"that  hold  down  the  truth  in  unrighteous- 
ness."] 


1  Of  the  earlier  English  versions,  Wickliffe,  Tyndale, 
Crannier,  aud  the  Genevan  huve  withhold ;  the  Rhera- 
ish  has  delain;  Alford,  hold  back;  the  Vulgate  and 
'Beza.,  detinent ;  Diodati's  Italian  and  DeLacy's  French 


have  retain  (ritengono,  retiennent) ;.  the  Bible  Society's 
French  has  suppress  (suppriment) ;  Luther's  German 
hasaufhalten  [to  hirider]. 


Ch.  I.] 


ROMANS. 


47 


19  Because  that  which  may  be  known  of  (Jod  is 
manifest  in  them  ;  for  (Jod  liath  shewed  it  unto  them. 

2u  tor  the  invisible  things  of  hiui  from  the  creation 
of  the  world  are  clearly  seen,  being  understood  by  the 


19  who  1  hinder  the  truth  iti  unrighteousness;  because 
that  wiiicli   may  be  known  of  (iod  is  manifest  in 

20  tliem;  for  (iod  manifested  it  unto  them.  For  the 
invisible  things  of  him  since  the  creation  of  the 
world  are  clearly  seen,  being  perceived  through  the 


1  Or,  hold  tht  truth. 


19.  Because.  The  connection  of  the  thought 
is  this:  this  chiirge  which  I  bring  against 
them  is  just;  'because'  it  is  true ;  tirst,  that 
they  have  the  elementary  knowledge  of  the 
truth  (proved  in  ver.  19,  20),  and,  secondly, 
that  they  so  pervert  it  (proved  in  ver.  21-23). 
The  argument  of  ver.  18  to  20,  though  com- 
pressed, is  very  clear  and  conclusive.  [Meyer 
and  others  see  in  this  because  the  reason 
why  God's  wrath  comes  upon  wicked  men.] 
That  which  may  be  known  of  God— that 
is,  whatever  may  be  learned  about  God 
from  nature  and  providence,  apart  from 
revelation.  [According  to  Meyer,  De  Wette, 
and  others,  yvuxnov,  which  in  the  classics  most 
frequently  means  knouinble,  does  not  occur  in 
this  sense  in  the  New  Testament,  the  LXX., 
or  the  Apocrypha,  but  signifies  that  which 
is  actually  known  {yviarov).  All  that  might 
be  known  of  God  was  not  manifest  in  the 
heathen  ;  but  they  did  know,  even  apart  from 
revelation,  of  a  Creator,  and  of  his  everlasting 
power  and  divinity.  (Aotaii:  i? ;  i7: 27.)  The 
heavens  declared  to  them  God's  power  and 
glory,  but  no  inspired  word  revealed  to  them 
his  will  and  grace.  Godet,  however,  thinks 
the  manifestation  of  that  which  is  known  is 
a  "startling  tautology.''  According  to  the 
teaching  of  this  passage,  it  is  plain  that  agnos- 
ticism cannot  be  justified  even  in  the  heathen.] 
Is  manifest  in  them.  Not  merely  among 
them,  or  to  them,  but  in  them — that  is,  in 
their  hearts  and  consciences.  This  agrees 
with  the  following  verse,  and  also  with  2:  15. 
For  God  hath  shewed  it  unto  them.  It  is 
manifest  in  them  ;  for  God  manifested  it  to 
them.  The  Common  Version  fails  to  exhibit 
the  intimate  connection  between  the  verb  in 
this  clause,  and  the  adjective  in  the  preceding 
clause.  The  indefinite  past  tense  is  preferable 
to  the  perfect  here — 'manifested,'  to  'hath 
shewn,'  or  '  hath  manifested.'  God  so  framed 
the  earth  and  man  at  the  creation  as  to  bear 
witness  to  himself.  Compare  Acts  14:  17; 
17:  26,  27.  ["He  left  not  himself  without 
witness."  "By  saying  that  God  manifested 
it,  he  means  that  man   was  created  to  be  a 


spectator  of  this  formed  world,  and  that  eyes 
were  given  him,  that  he  might,  by  looking 
on  so  fair  a  picture,  be  led  up  to  the  Author 
himself."  (Calvin.)  If  Paul,  in  this  passage, 
had  referred  to  an  original  revelation,  as  some 
have  supposed,  he  would  probably  have  used 
the  word  revealed.] 

20.  For  the  invisible  things  of  him. 
[The  adjective  may  mean  unseen,  or,  that 
which  cannot  be  seen  (by  the  outward  eye), 
invisible.'\  These  invisible  things  are  his  un- 
seen attributes  and  perfections  [especially  his 
everlasting  power  and  divinity.  AVith  this 
passage,  compare  "Wisdom  of  Solomon," 
chap.  13.]  From  the  creation  of  the 
world.  'From'  is  here  to  be  understood 
in  a  temporal  sense,  equivalent  to  "ever 
since."  To  understand  it  as  referring  to  the 
medium  of  that  knowledge  of  God  attributed 
to  the  heathen  would  be  to  make  this  and  the 
following  clause  aflBrm  the  same  thing,  con- 
trary to  the  very  condensed  style  of  the 
apostle  in  these  verses.  [Dr.  Gifford,  how- 
ever, thinks  the  one  clause  may  refer  to  the 
source  of  knowledge,  the  other  to  the  method 
of  its  derivation.]  Are  clearly  seen — liter- 
ally, are  looked  down  upon,  looked  at,  ob- 
served, being  understood  by  the  things 
that  are  made.  [Paul,  as  in  the  passages 
above  cited,  advanced  similar  ideas  at  Lj'stra 
and  at  Athens.]  There  is  a  verbal  contradic- 
tion here,  even  more  manifestly  in  the  original 
than  in  our  translation  [to  see  what  is  unseen, 
or  invisible,  a  figure  of  speech  called  oxy- 
moron] ;  but  it  is  easily  explained.  Invisible 
things  cannot,  of  course,  be  clenrly  seen,  in 
the  literal  sense  of  the  words.  But  they  are 
clearly  seen  by  the  exercise  of  the  mi7id  upon 
the  things  that  are  made,  which  is  precisely 
what  the  apostle  here  affirms  [in  the  use  of 
the  word  perceived].  The  things  that  are 
made  strike  the  senses;  the  inference  from 
them  of  a  Divine  Power  .strikes  the  consider- 
ing mind.  So  Cicero  saj-s :  Deum  non  vides 
— tamen  agnoscis  ex  operibus  ejus.  "Tusc. 
Disp."  1 :  29.  "  Thou  dost  not  see  G^d  :  yet 
thou  knowest  him  from  his  works."     Even 


48 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  I. 


things  that  are  made,  even  his  eternal  power  and  God- 
head ;  so  that  they  are  without  excuse : 


things  that  are  made,  even  his  everlasting  power 
and  divinity;  i  that  they  may  be  without  excuse: 


(literally,   both)   his    eternal    power    and 
(eternal)  Godhead.     These  are  'the  invisible 
things  of  him.'     His  'power'  is  the  thought 
that  first  and  most  impressively  strikes  the 
considering    mind   on   the   contemplation    of 
his  works.     ["  Eternal,  and  Almighty,  have 
always  been  recognized  epithets  of  the  Crea- 
tor."   (Alford.)]     But,  it  may  be  asked,  How 
can  his  'eternal'  power  be  inferred  from  the 
things  that  are  made?    They  were  not  made 
from    eternity.      The    apostle    here   assumes 
that  the  human  mind  is  so  constituted  as  to 
reject  the  idea  that  such  power  could  ever 
have  been  acquired,  such  skill  ever  learned : 
he  who  has  such  power  and  skill  must  always 
have  had  it.     [Possibly,  too,  their  feeling  of 
dependence,  as  well  as  the  apparent  depend- 
ence of  all  things  begun,  changing,  and  tran- 
sient, may  have  led  them  to  think  of  a  Being 
independent,    unchanging,     eternal.      Some, 
however,  suppose  that  God,  in  addition  to  the 
light    of   nature,    made  to  primeval   man  a 
special  revelation  of  himself  as  Creator  of  all 
things.     In  some  way  or  other,  the  Gentiles 
liegan    with    monotheism — they    knew    God 
(ver.  2i),and  in  this  matter  they,  though  ignor- 
ant of  our  many  natural  sciences,  and  our 
modern  scientific  discoveries  and  inventions, 
diflPered  widely  from  some  of  our  "scientists," 
who,  by  means  of  the  telescope  and  microscope, 
see  everywhere,  and  in  every  thing  through- 
out God's  vast  creation,  so  much  of  power, 
wisdom,   order,    beauty,    adaptation,    design, 
perfection — that  they  become  "agnostics"  who 
do  not  know  much,  or  anything,  about  the  be- 
ingof  an  Almighty Crea,tor,  thatlnfiniteMind, 
which  could  alone  plan  and  conserve  such  a 
universe  as  this.    "  Heathenism,"  says  Meyer, 
"is   not   the  primeval  religion,   from  which 
man  might  gradually  have  risen  to  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  true  God  ;  but  is,  on  the  contrary, 
the  result  of  a  falling  away  from  the  known 
original  revelation  of  the  true   God  in   his 
works."]  Under  the  term,  "Godhead"  [prop- 
erly, divinity  (eeioTrjs)  not  Godhead,  or  deity 
(eeoTi)?),  which  dwells  in  Christ,  see  Col.  2:  9], 
the  apostle  comprehends  whatever  else  of  the 
divine  perfections,  besides  eternal  power,  can 
he  learned  from  the  works  of  creation  and 


providence.      The  adjective  "eternal"    [not 
ai<ii/tos,  properly  rendered,  eternal ;  but  iiSioj, 
everlasting,  from  iei,  always,  occurring  also 
in  Jude  6]   is  to  be  regarded  as  qualifying 
this  word  "  Godhead,"  as  well  as   the  word 
"power"   [the  adjective  not  being  repeated, 
since  the  nouns  are  of  the  same  gender.     For 
the  same  reason,  the  first  noun  only  has  tiie 
article.     (Winer  527,   128.)     (On   t€— icai,  see 
at  ver.  14.)]      So  that  they  are   without 
excuse.     [The  construction  here,  the  prepo- 
sition into,  or  unto  (eis),  with  the  infinitive 
and    article,    generally,    if   not    universally, 
telic,  denotes  not  a  result  (so  that),  but  a  pur- 
pose, in  order  that,  and  it  is  so  regarded  by 
Meyer  (and   Godet)  in    this   place,   his  idea 
being  that  this  seeing  or  perception  of  the 
divine  attributes  through   his  works,  was  so 
ordained,  or  purposely  established,  that  sin- 
ning men   should  have   no  excuse.      Lange 
regards  this  view  as  a  predestinating  men  for 
guilt  (not  necessarily  so,  however),  and  with 
most  commentators,  sees   here  but  a  simple 
result.    Yet  what  is  Dr.  SchaflP's  "  (intended) 
result"  but  the  divine  purpose?     The  right 
view  is  very  happily  stated  by  Dr.  Giiford : 
'■''Godi's, purpose  was  to  leave  nothing  undone 
on  his  part,  the  omission  of  which  might  give 
men  an  excuse  for  sin."     A  similar  construc- 
tion occurs  in  1:  11;    3:  26;    4:  11;   16:  18; 
6 :  12 ;  7 :  4,  5 ;  8 :  29  ;    11:11;    12 :  2,  3  ;    15 : 
8,  13,  16.     Meyer  contends  that  all  these  infin- 
itives have  a  telle  force.      Others  denj'  this 
force  of  the  preposition  to  or  icnto  (eis)  before 
an    infinitive    present.      See   Prof    Thayer's 
"Lexicon,''  p.  185.]     Facts  correspond  with 
the    apostle's    statements    throughout    these 
verses.     The  heathen  have  more  light  than 
they  are  willing  to  improve.     Their  responsi- 
bility is   measured  by  the  light  which  they 
have  opportunity  to  enjoy,  and  not  by  that 
which  they  choose  to  appropriate.     Many  tes- 
timonies might  easily  be  adduced,  to  prove 
that    they   have  more   light    than    they   are 
willing  to  improve,  and  that  they  know  ^Aem- 
se^i'es  to  be  inexcusable.    Take  the  following  as 
a  single  specimen.     Rev.  A.  W.  Murray,  after 
nearly  forty  years  of  extensive  observation  in 
the  island  world  of  Polynesia,  says:  "  I  have 


Ch.  I.] 


ROMANS. 


49 


21  Because  that,  wheu  they  knew  God,  they  glorified 
him  not  as  God,  neither  were  thankful;  hut  became 
vain  in  their  iuiagiuations,  and  their  foolish  heart  was 
darkened. 


21  hecau.>*e  that,  knowing  God,  they  glorified  him  not 
as  God,  neither  gave  thanks;  hut  became  vain  in 
their   reasonings,   and   their   senseless   heart    was 


never  found,  in  all  my  wanderings  among 
savage  tribes,  any  who  had  not  some  idea  of 
a  future  life,  and  of  beings  superior  to  them- 
selves, to  whom  they  owed  some  sort  of  hom- 
age, and  whom  they  feared,  and  sought  in  some 
way  to  propitiate.  If  the  entire  absence  of 
all  religious  belief  is  to  be  found  anywhere 
among  the  human  family,  I  know  of  no  place 
so  likely  as  among  the  aborigines  of  Australia. 
There  man  has  sunk  about  as  low  as  he  can 
sink;  yet,  among  some  of  the  tribes  there  is 
a  distinct  belief  in  a  future  life  and  a  Supreme 
Being."  One  of  the  most  forcible  exhibitions 
of  the  inexcusableness  of  the  heathen  mtiy 
be  found  in  an  excellent  little  tract,  published 


Pitiably  blind  and  ignorant  must  those  persons 
be  who  can  discern,  in  all  this  universe,  no 
intelligent  force,  no  sign  of  an  Infinite  Mind.] 
21.  The  word  because  shows  thtit  this  verse 
is  designed  to  confirm  and  expand  the  thought 
expressed  in  the  last  clause  of  the  preceding 
verse — to  illustrate  still  further  the  inexcusa- 
bleness of  the  heathen.  When  they  knew 
GoA\\\ievA\\y, having  known  Goti]  refers  to  ver. 
19  ;  it  does  not  refer  to  that  saving  knowledge 
of  God  spoken  of  in  sucli  passages  as  Jer. 
9  :  24;  John  17  :  3,  25.  They  glorified  him 
not  as  Goil  ["according  to  the  measure  of 
his  divine  quality."— Meyer],  neither  were 
thankful — more  literally,  neither  gave  thanks. 


many  years  ago  by  our  veteran  Burman  mis-  ,  [Because  of  this  the  apostle  asserts  that  they 
sionary.  Dr.  Edward  A.  Stevens,  entitled  :  I  are  witliout  excuse,  even  while  ignorant  of  the 
"  Are  the  Heatiien  in  a  Perishing  Condition?"  '  "historic  Christ"  or  of  God's  amazing  love 
He  shows  that  they  themselves  resent,  as  an  j  in  him.]    The  first  clause  relates  to  the  adora- 


insult  to  their  understanding,  the  apology 
sometimes  made  for  them,  that  the  poor, 
simple  creatures  know  no  better.  [On  the  fate 
of  such  heathen,  see  notes  on  2 :  12;  10:  14. 
AVe  here  would  simply  remark  that  if  the 
heathen  who  have  sinned  though  "without 
law,"  have  no  excuse,  then  they  may  be 
judged  and  condemned  by  our  Lord  and 
Saviour,  and  we  must  regard  as  false  the 
dictum  of  the  New  Theology,  or  Progressive 
Orthodoxy,  that  till  "those  who  are  to  stand 
before  Christ  as  a  Judge  must  first  hear  of  him 
as  a  Saviour."]  Note  what  an  emphatic  en- 
dorsement of  the  cosmological  argument  for 
the  existence  of  God  is  contained  in  the  above 
ver~os. 

Observe,  also,  what  a  broad  foundation  is 
here  laid  for  the  science  of  Natural  Theology 
— and   that,   too,    in   the    midst  of  an    argu- 


tion  of  the  divine  perfections  in  general;  the 
second,  to  the  acknowledgment  of  him  as  the 
Giver  of  every  good.  Bengel  thus  distin- 
guishes them  :  "  We  ought  to  give  thanks  on 
account  of  his  benefits;  to  glorify  him,  on  ac- 
count of  his  own  perfections."  They  did 
neither.  But  became  vain  in  their  imagi- 
nations. [Thej'  turned  their  thoughts  to 
that  which  is  vain  and  empty,  because  in 
turning  away  from  God  they  lost  the  highest 
object  of  their  thought.  See  Weiss'  "Bibli- 
cal Theology  of  the  New  Testament,"  vol.  I, 
p.  354.]  The  word  translated  '  became  vain  '  is 
not  used  elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament 
[nor  is  it  found  in  the  Greek  authors],  but  is 
used  about  half  a  dozen  times  in  the  Greek 
translation  of  the  Old  Testament,  commonly 
called  the  Septuagint.  In  the  language  of  the 
Old  Testament,  the  word  vanity  is  in  many 


ment  evincing  the  value  and  necessity  of  a  !  places  nearly  synon.vmous  with  falsehood,  or 
divine  revelation.  [Meyer  notices  "  how  com- '  sin  in  general,  and  especially  idolatry.  See 
pletely  in  our  passage  the  transcendental  '  Dont.  ^2:  21;  2  Kings  17:  15,  16.  Compare 
relation  of  God  to  the  world — the  negation  of  |  also  Acts  14:  15.  The  word  here  translated 
all  identity  of  the  two— lies  at  the  foundation  'imaginations'  (elsewhere  'thoughts,'  'rea- 
of  the  apostle's  view.  It  does  not  exclude  the  }  sonings')  is  generally  in  the  New  Testament 
immanence  of  God  in  the  world,  but  it  ex- '  used  in  an  unfavorable  sense.     See  Matt.  15: 


c]ui\es  :i\\2}a7itheism."  Dr.  Schaif  .says  :  "The 
book  of  nature  is,  as  Basil  calls  it,  n  paideute- 
rion  theognosias,  a  school  of  the  general  knowl- 
edge of  God;  and  there  is  no  nation  on  earth 
which  is  entirely  destitute  of  this  knowledge." 


19 ;  Mark  7  :  21 ;  Luke  6 :  8 ;  9 :  46,  47.  [Com- 
pare Rom.  14  :  1 ;  1  Cor.  3  :  20;  2  Cor.  10:  5; 
Phil.  2:  14;  1  Tim.  2:  8.]  And  their  foolish 
heart  was  darkened.  [The  apostle  in  Eph. 
4:  17-19  describes  the  Gentiles  in  much  the 


50 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  I. 


22  Professing  themselves  to  be  wise,  they  became 
fools. 

m  And  changed  the  glory  of  the  uncorruptible  God 
into  an  image  made  like  to  corruptible  man,  and  to 
birds,  and  fourlooted  beasts,  and  creeping  things. 


22  darkened.     Professing  themselves  to  be  wise,  they 

23  became  fools,  and  changed  the  glory  of  the  incor- 
ruptible God  for  the  likeness  of  an  image  of  cor- 
ruptible man,  and  of  birds,  and  fourfooted  beasts, 
and  creeping  things. 


same  language  as  he  employs  here,  character- 
izing them  as  being  vain,  depraved,  darkened, 
ignorant  in  their  minds,  and  as  hardened  in 
their  hearts,  as  being  alienated  from  the  life  of 
God  and  past  feeling,  morally  and  .spiritually 
dead.  The  term  'foolish,'  as  used  here,  is 
akin  to  undiscerning ;  implying  a  guilty  mis- 
use or  non-use  of  the  understanding.  (See  first 
note  to  ver.  14. )  That  their  hearts  had  become 
thus  wanting  in  understanding  is  implied  in 
their  becoming  vain  in  their  reasonings.  Some 
of  the  thoughts,  and  even  of  the  words  which 
Paul  uses  in  this  description  of  the  Gentiles, 
are  found  in  the  "Wisdom  of  Solomon," 
chapters  13  and  14.]  The  word  'heart,'  in 
our  common  English  speech,  usually  denotes 
the  seat  of  the  affections,  in  distinction  from 
the  intellect.  But  the  use  of  the  Greek  word 
in  the  New  Testament,  and  in  the  classical 
writers,  and  of  the  corresponding  Hebrew 
word  in  the  Old  Testament,  is  not  so  limited, 
but  includes  the  whole  inner  man,  intellect  as 
well  as  aff'ections.  See  Matt.  13:  15;  15:  19; 
2  Cor.  3 :  15 ;  4:6.  Hence  no  particular  stress 
is  to  be  put  on  the  word  'heart'  in  such  pas- 
sages as  Ps.  14  :  1 ;  53  :  1 ;  Eoni.  10 :  9,  10.  So 
also  the  word  usually  translated  "mind" 
sometimes  includes  the  aff'ections  and  desires, 
as  in  Eph.  2:  3.  Thus  the  heathen,  forsaking 
the  truth,  became  vain  in  their  imaginations, 
and  forsaking  the  light,  became  darkened  in 
their  hearts.  According  to  the  Scripture  [and 
to  the  teachings  of  history],  the  primeval  re- 
ligion was  neither  polytheism  nor  nature- 
worship.  If  those  who  have  only  the  light  of 
nature  are  inexcusable  for  not  glorifying  God, 
nor  being  thankful,  how  much  greater  is  the 
guilt  of  those  who,  with  all  the  additional 
light  of  the  gospel,  still  do  not  glorify  him  as 
God,  and  are  not  thankful  for  his  manifold 
m'ercies. 

22.  Professing  themselves  to  be  wise, 
they  became  fools.  Affirming  that  they 
were  wise  [while  ignorant  of  the  "ignorance 
that  was  in  them"],  they  became  foolish. 
Their  foolishness  was  only  made  more  con- 


spicuous by  their  pretensions  to  wisdom.  This 
was  eminently  illustrated  in  the  case  of 
the  so-called  sophists  among  the  Greeks, 
though  it  is  hardly  probable  that  the  apostle 
had  any  specific  reference  to  them.  ["The 
foolishness  of  God  is  wiser  than  men,"  how- 
ever much  of  wisdom  they  may  arrogate  to 
themselves.  For  a  similar  use  of  the  word 
rendered  'professing,'  see  Acts  24:  9;  25:  19 
(and  Ke  V.  2 :  2,  according  to  our  Textus  Reccp- 
tus).  For  the  construction,  see  note  on  ver.  12. 
The  description  here  given  of  the  professedly 
wise  is  not  wholly  inapplicable  to  some  of  our 
modern  scientists.] 

23.  The  sense  of  this  verse  would  be  justly, 
though  in  the  first  part  of  the  verse  less  liter- 
ally, expressed  by  the  following  paraphrase: 
a7id  substituted  for  the  glorious  incorruptible 
God  an  image  of  the  likeness  of  corruptible 
man,  etc.  [Compare  this  language  with  Ps. 
106:  20.]  The  Greeks  and  Romans  worshiped 
for  the  most  part  representations  of  their  false 
gods  under  the  human  form;  but  the  Egyp- 
tians, and  other  still  ruder  nations,  worshiped 
birds,  as  the  ibis,  or  stork  ;  four-footed  beasts, 
as  Apis,  the  sacred  ox,  the  dog,  and  the  cat; 
and  even  reptiles,  or  creeping  things,  as  the 
crocodile,  and  the  serpent.  [The  term  incor- 
ruptible^ as  applied  to  God,  occurs  elsewhere 
only  in  1  Tim.  1 :  17,  an  important  text  in  the 
history  of  the  elder  Edward's  religious  expe- 
rience. As  to  its  distinction  from  the  term 
immortal,  see  Trench's  "Synonyms,"  p.  254. 
It  is  found  elsewhere  in  1  Cor.  9:  25;  15:  52; 
1  Peter  1:4,  23;  3:  4.  The  noun  occurs  in 
Rom.  2:  7  ;  1  Cor.  15:  42,  50,  53,  54;  Eph.  6: 
24;  2  Tim.  1:  10;  Titus  2:  7.  The  heathen, 
instead  of  glorifying  the  Creator,  worshiped 
him,  if  at  all,  as  a  created  being — "for  it  is 
only  such  a  being  that  can  find  its  likeness  in 
these  images"  (Weiss);  thus  degrading  this 
incorruptible  One  "inHhe  likenessof  an  image 
(likeness  consisting  in  an  image)  of  corrupti- 
ble man,  and  of  birds,  and  of  quadrupeds,  and 
of  reptiles."  Meyer  makes  "birds,"  etc.,  in 
the  same  construction  with   m,an — i.   e.,  de- 


1  On  the  force  of  this  in,  as  "  to  charge  something  In  I  the  exchange  is  eflfected.  The  in  of  price  is  similar." 
gold,"  Winer  thus  remarks:  " It  Is  either  an  abbrevi-  This  construction  is  commonly  termed  Hebraistic, 
ated  expression,  or  '  gold '  is  conceived  as  that  in  which  \  Meyer,  however,  regards  the  en  as  instrumental.— (F.) 


Ch.  I.] 


ROMANS. 


51 


24  Wherefore  God  also  gave  them  up  to  uncleanness, 
through  the  lusts  of  their  own  hearts,  to  dishonour 
their  own  bodies  between  themselves  : 


24  Wherefore  God  gave  them  up  in  the  lusts  of  their 
hearts  unto  uncleauuess,  that  their  bodies  should  be 

25  dishonoured  among  themselves:    for  that  they  ex- 


pendent  on  image.  The  Egyptian  worship  of 
animals  had  at  that  time  in  part  become  do- 
mesticated in  Kome,  according  to  Tholuck 
and  Lange.] 

24.  Here  follows  a  description  and  enume- 
ration of  the  vices  which  illustrate  the  'un- 
righteousness' spoken  of  in  ver.  18,  as  the 
preceding  verses  21-23  illustrate  the  'ungodli- 
ness' there  mentioned.  Wherefore.  The 
apostle  lays  stress  on  the  logical  connec- 
tion between  their  ungodliness  and  their  un- 
righteouj^ne.ss — -between  their  abandonment  of 
God  by  idolatry,  and  God's  abandonment  of 
them  to  the  unrestrained  indulgence  of  un- 
natural lusts  and  every  degrading  vice  and 
evil  passion.  The  latter  was  the  logical  con- 
sequence, the  actual  result,  and  the  just  retri- 
bution of  the  former.  Not  content  with  the 
emphatic  alBrination  of  this  connection  by 
the  word  '  wherefore  '  at  the  beginning  of  ver. 
24,  he  reiterates  it  in  ver.  26,  "for  this  cause,'' 
and  echoes  it  again  in  ver.  28,  "and  even  as." 
He  seems  to  wish  to  impress  the  thought 
deeply  that  the  primal  error,  the  first  step  in 
the  downward  course,  was  the  abandonment 
of  God  as  the  sole  object  of  worship;  that  the 
stream  of  vice  has  its  source  in  ungodliness; 
that  irreligion  is  the  root  of  immorality.  [See 
Mulier's  "Christian  Doctrine  of  Sin,"  vol.  I, 
p.  131 ;  II,  470,  Pulsford's  Translation.]  The 
converse  would  seem  to  follow — that  there  can 
be  no  true  and  complete  morality  which  is 
not  rooted  in  religion,  in  reverential  regard 
for  God.  God  also  gave  them  up  to  un- 
t'leanness.  That  little  word  'also'  is  not 
without  significance ;  it  seems  to  intimate  that 
God's  retributive  abandonment  of  them  cor- 
responded, in  proportion  and  progress,  to 
their  impious  abandonment  of  him.  [This, 
however,  is  omitted  in  the  Revised  Version.] 
He  'gave  them  up'  ;  this  e.xpresses,  on  the 
one  hand,  something  more  than  n^ere  permis- 
sion, and,  on  the  other  hand,  something  less 
than  positive  impulse  toward  any  of  these 
abominations.      ["It    is    at    least  a  judicial 


abandonment"  (Hodge),  and  is  akin  to  what 
is  implied  in  our  Saviour's  utterance,  John  9: 
39:  "For  judgment  came  I  into  this  world 
that  .  .  .  they  who  (profess  to)  see  might  be- 
come blind."]  The  same  id(!a  is  expressed 
elsewhere,  both  in  the  Old  Testament  and  in 
the  New.  See  Ps.  81  :  12;  Isa.  6:  10;  Mark 
4:12;  Acts7:42;  Rom.9:18.  AUthistakes 
place,  at  the  same  time,  through  (literally 
in)  the  lusts  of  their  own  hearts.  [Epi- 
thumia,  denoting,  generally,  evil  desire  (al- 
ways so  in  the  plural)  is  rendered  lust  in  6: 
12;  7:7;  13:  14,  and  concupiscence  in  7:  8. 
The  verb  occurs  in  7:  7;  13:  9,  in  connection 
with  the  tenth  commandment.]  This  expres- 
sion, in  the  lusts,  not  only  specifies  the  de- 
partment of  their  being  i?i  which  this  dis- 
honor took  place,  but  also  intimates  that  they 
were  perfectly  voluntary  ;  while  God  deliv- 
ered them  up  to  this  uncleanness,  they  went 
into  it  in  full  accordance  with  the  inclinations 
of  their  own  hearts.  [In  Eph.  4:  19,  we  read 
that  the  Gentiles  ''''gave  themselves  up  to  las- 
civiousness,"  and  this  twofold  representation 
of  divine  and  human  agency  is  but  a  repeti- 
tion of  God's  hardening  Pharaoh's  heart  and 
of  Pharaoh's  hardening  his  own  heart.  ''He 
gives  hhnself  up,"  says  Meyer,  "while  he  is 
given  up  by  God  to  that  tragic  nexus  of  moral 
destiny;  and  he  becomes  no  machine  of  sin, 
but  possesses  at  every  moment  the  capacity  of 
repejitance,  which  the  very  reaction  resulting 
from  the  feeling  of  the  most  terrible  misery 
of  sin — punished  through  sin — is  designed  to 
produce."  In  this  penal  retribution  for 
man's  apostasy,  we  see  the  beginnings  of  the 
manifestation  of  "  God's  wrath."]  To  dis- 
honour their  oAvn  bodies  between  them- 
selves. This  verse  might  be  read  more  in 
accordance  with  the  order  of  the  words  in  the 
original  Greek — "Wherefore  God  gave  them 
up,  in  the  lusts  of  their  own  hearts,  to  the 
uncleanness  of  their  own  bodies  being  dis- 
honored among  them."  ^  The  reading  them 
is  better  sustained  by  the  manuscripts  than 


1  The  form  of  the  verb,  being  in  the  infinitive  (either  i  others.    Yet  this  infinitive  clause  is  by  many  (Thohick 


middle  or  passive)  with  toO,  usually  denotes  purpose 
(compare?:  3;  Acts  26:  18;  1  Cor.  10:  13;  Heb.  10:  7), 
and  this  is  expressed  in  the  Revised  Version,  and  is 
also  favored,  rightly,  we  think,  by  Philippi,  Godet,  and 


Fritzsche,  De  Wette,  Meyer)  regarded  as  a  noun  in 
the  genitive  case  of  apposition,  after  the  word  un- 
cleanness (Winer,  326 ;  Buttmann,  2G8),  the  clause  thus 
showing  in  what  the  uncleanness  consisted. — (F.) 


52 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  I. 


25  Who  changed  the  truth  of  God  into  a  lie,  and 
worshipped  and  served  the  creature  more  thau  the 
Creator,  who  is  blessed  lor  ever.    Amen. 


changed  the  truth  of  God  for  a  lie,  and  worshipped 
and  Served  the  creature  rather  than  the  Creator,  who 
is  blessed  i  for  ever.     Amen. 


1  Gr.  unto  the  ages. 


the  reading  themselves ;^  among  is  more  exact 
tlian  between,  and  the  change  in  these  two 
expressions  favors  the  passive  sense  of  tlie  verb 
to  dishonor,  the  form  of  v^hich  is  ambiguous, 
admitting  either  the  active  or  the  passive 
sense,  but  with  a  presumption,  apart  from  the 
above  considerations,  in  favor  of  the  latter. 
The  expression  "among  them"  is  equivalent 
to  "ill  their  common  intercourse."  ["The 
most  terrible  misery  of  sin''  is  that  sin  leads 
to  sin,  and  this  too  in  the  way  of  a  descent 
from  bad  to  worse.  In  the  words  of  Schiller, 
quoted  by  Schatf — 

This  is  the  very  curse  of  evil  deed. 
That  of  new  evil  it  becomes  the  seed.2 

And  when  one  enters  upon  an  evil  course, 
he  knows  not  to  what  depths  of  degradation 
he  may  be  led.  His  language  at  first  may  be, 
"Is  thy  servant  a  dog  that  he  should  do  this 
great  thing?"  and  he  ends  with  doing  that 
which  the  very  beasts  would  be  ashamed  to 
do.  Thus,  self-destroyed  and  lost  in  vileness, 
he  may  say  with  Mokanna,  in  the  "Veiled 
Prophet  of  Khorassen"  : 

Here,judge  if  hell,  with  all  its  power  to  damn, 
Can  add  one  curse  to  the  foul  thing  I  am. 

And  what  a  degradation  is  this,  that  those 
who  were  formed  for  God  and  who  "knew 
God"  and  truth  and  duty,  should,  under  this 
law  of  development,  of  moral  seed-sowing 
and  harvesting,  be  so  far  given  over  to  dis- 
eased appetites  or  vile  passions,  that  their 
noblest  faculty,  the  sovereign  power  of  will — 
that  which  they  have  "in  superior  distinction 
from  the  beast" — becomes  subservient  to  their 
lusts  and  the  means  of  sinking  themselves 
lower  than  the  brutes.] 
25.  Who  changed  the  truth  of  God  into 


a  lie.  The  word  translated  '  who'  is  not  the 
simple  relative  pronoun,  but  a  compound 
which  [like  the  Latin,  quippe  qui]  often  inti- 
mates a  reason  for  what  precedes,  "as  being 
such  who,"  or  "because  they  were  such  as." 
[Buttmann,  however,  supposes  that  this  form 
in  the  later  language  lost  some  of  its  original 
force.]  'Changed  the  truth  of  God  into  a 
lie' — equivalent  to  "exchanged  the  true  God 
for  a  false,"  as  in  ver.  23.  [Philo,  speaking 
of  the  Israelites  making  the  golden  calf,  says  : 
"What  a  lie  they  subsituted  for  how  great  a 
reality!  "  "The  truth  of  God,"  says  Weiss, 
"stands  for  the  true  nature  of  God."  The 
word  "changed"  here  is  stronger  in  form 
than  the  "changed"  of  ver.  23,  and  conse- 
quently has  a  stronger  meaning,  equivalent  to 
exchanged.  Tiie  preposition  'into,'  accompa- 
nying the  word  lie,  denotes  "the  element  in 
which  the  change  subsisted."  (Alford.)  See 
also  on  ver.  23.]  And  worshipped  and 
served.  The  former  verb  [primarily  mean- 
ing "to  be  afraid  of,"  occurring  onlj'  here,  in 
form  a  passive  deponent,  and  usually  followed 
by  the  accusative]  signifies  inward  reverence, 
and  the  latter  outward  acts  of  homage,  as 
sacrifices,  pra^^ers,  etc.  [See  notes  on  ver.  9, 
and  compare  Matt.  4 :  10  ;  Luke  2:  37.]  The 
creature  is  put  for  created  and  material 
things  in  general.  More  than  the  Creator 
— beside,  or  in  preference  to,  the  Creator,  im- 
plying exclusion  ['■''instead  o/the  Creator."  — 
Winer],  for  the  Creator  allows  no  rival. 
Who  is  blessed  forever.  Amen.^  This 
doxology  forcibly  indicates  the  apostle's  pious 
horror  at  such  a  dishonor  put  upon  God,  and 
sets  their  sin  in  a  stronger  light.  For  similar 
examples  of  abrupt  doxology  in  the  midst  of 
a  sentence,  see  2  Cor.  11:  31;   Gal.  1:5.     It 


1  Our  TextusReceptus  has  the  reflexive,  eourois  (them- 
selves), the  reading  ofD***EGKL.  The  older  uncials 
X  A  B  C  D  *  have  aurois,  them.  The  Revisers  have  this 
latter  form,  yet  render  it  as  reflexive.  The  contracted 
form  of  the  reflexive  (eauToIs)  would  be  aiirots,  but 
these  contracted  forms  of  the  third  person  are  sup- 
posed not  to  occur  in  the  New  Testament.  See  Butt- 
mann, p.  111.  Yet  Westcott  and  Hort  have  this  form, 
auToc5,  in  ver.  27.  Meyer  thinks  the  reflexive  forms 
were  frequently  neglected  by  the  copyists,  and  so  would 
read  the  reflexive  here,  as  in  ver.  27.— (F.) 


2  Das  eben  ist  der  Fluch  der  bosen  That 
Das  sie,  fortzeugend,  immer  Boses  muss  gebaren.  (F.) 
3"  God  is  blessed  unto  the  ages,"  even  though  men 
may  dishonor  and  degrade  him.  Chrysostom  says  that 
it  was  not  to  avenge  himself  that  God  gave  them  up, 
for  he  suffered  nothing— i.  e.,  he  is  forever  blessed. 
Alford  states  that  the  verbal  adjective  here  employed 
(euAoyijTos,  blessed)  is  commonly  used  of  God,  but  the 
participle  (euAoyrj^eVo?)  oltener  of  man.  See,  however, 
€uAoyT)Tds  in  Thayer's  Lexicon,  and  notes  on  9  :  5. — (P.) 


Ch.  I.] 


ROMANS. 


53 


26  For  this  cause  God  gave  theui  up  unto  vile  atfec- 
tious:  lor  even  their  women  did  ehange  the  natural 
use  into  that  which  is  against  nature; 

27  And  likewise  also  the  men,  leaving  the  natural 
use  of  the  woman,  hurned  in  their  lust  one  toward 
another;  men  with  men  working  that  which  is  un- 


26  For  this  cause  (iod  gave  them  up  unto  'vile  pas- 
sions :   lor  their  women  changed  the  natural  use  into 

27  tlial  which  is  against  nature:  and  likewise  also  the 
men,  leaving  the  natural  use  of  the  woman,  burned 
in-  their  lust  one  toward  another,  men  with  men 


1  Gr.  pa^aions  of  dishonour. 


gave  a  shock  to  the  apostle's  mind  to  think 
tliiit  men  should  be  so  infatuated  as  to  turn 
away  from  the  Creator  to  tiie  creature,  and 
led  him  to  seek  relief  in  a  devout  doxology. 
The  idolatry  of  the  heatlien  in  our  day  ouglit 
to  produce  similar  eflects  in  the  hearts  of  all 
Christians. 

26.  For  this  cause.  So  the  apostle  re- 
affirms what  he  had  asserted  in  the  beginning 
of  ver.  24,  the  connection  between  their  un- 
godly idohitries  and  their  unnatural  vices. 
Is  it  not  a  legitimate  inference  from  what  is 
here  so  emphatically  in.--isted  on,  that  as 
departure  from  God  brought  on  all  this  degra- 
dation, so  return  to  God  is  the  only  effectual 
cure?  And  is  it  not  a  fair  applicati'  n  of  this 
principle,  that  the  elevation  of  the  degraded 
communities  and  nations  is  to  be  expected  and 
sought,  not  from  commerce,  civilization,  secu- 
lar education,  or  any  other  appliance  of  this 
nature,  but  chiefly  from  Christian  missions — 
the  faitiiful  and  persevering  promulgation  of 
the  gospel  among  them  ?  Tiiis,  while  it  brings 
them  back  to  God,  will  bring  with  it  all  other 
and  secondary  means  of  social,  mental,  moral, 
and  material  progress.  God  gave  them  up 
unto  vile  affections.  Compare  Eph.  4:  19. 
They  are  there  said  to  "have  given  themselves 
over  unto  lasciviousness,  to  work  all  unclean- 
ness  with  greediness."  The  same  verb  is  used 
in  both  cases.  God  gave  them  up;  they  gave 
themselves  up;  there  is  no  real  contradiction  : 
God  gave  them  up,  in  the  lusts  of  their  own 
hearts,  ver.  24:  this  last  clause  brings  the 
two  forms  of  statement  into  harmony.  [On 
this  verb,  to  give  up,  the  same  which  occurs 
in  ver.  24,  Meyer  thus  remarks:  "It  ex- 
presses the  real  active  abandoning  on  the  part 


of  God,"  which,  moreover,  "is  quite  in  keep- 
ing with  the  universal  agency  of  God,  in  his 
physical  and  moral  government  of  the  world, 
without,  however,  making  God  appear  as  the 
author  of  sin,  which,  on  the  contrary,  has  its 
root  in  the  lusts  of  the  heart."  This  retribu- 
tive abiindoning  is  akin  to  the  "judicial  in- 
fatuation "  jmplied  in  God's  sending  to  those 
who  received   not  the  love  of  the  truth  "a 

working   of  delusion."        (2  Xhess.  2:  11,  Eev.  Ver.)] 

'  Vile  affections,'  disgraceful  affections,  or  dis- 
honorable passions,  literall3\  "passions  of 
dishonor."  The  word  'vile'  here  used  in  our 
common  translation,  is  ambiguous.  It  has 
generally  in  the  Scriptures,  as  almost  always 
in  our  common  speech  at  the  present  day,  the 
sense  of  moral  unworthiness.  So  also  in  1  Sam. 
3  :  13.  But  in  other  places,  it  expresses  only 
the  want  of  value,  which  is  the  primitive  sense 
of  the  word.  So  in  1  Sam.  15:  9.  It  is  nearly 
akin  to  "humble"  in  2  Sam.  6:  22,  and  in 
Phil.  3:21,  "our  vile  body  "—literally,  "the 
body  of  our  humility,"  contrasted  in  the  con- 
text with  "the  glorious  body"  which  we  are 
to  receive  at  the  coming  of  our  Lord.  For 
even  their  women.  The  prevalence  of  un- 
natural vice  even  among  women,  indicated, 
more  forcibly  than  anything  else,  the  depth 
of  degradation  and  pollution  into  which  man- 
kind had  sunk.^ 

27.  In  this  and  the  preceding  verse,  the 
apostle  uses,  instead  of  the  words  ordinarily 
translated  "men''  and  "women,"  the  words 
meaning  "males"  and  "females,"  and  so 
translated  in  Matt.  19:  4;  Mark  10:  6,  and. 
Gal.  3:  28.^  Working  that  which  is  un- 
seemly. [More  literally,  tvorking  out,  or 
perpetrating   the   (well-known)   indecency.] 


'  Te  yap,  far  indeed,  occurs  again  at  7  :  7.  If,  however, 
T«  is  retained  in  the  next  verse,  these  correlatives 
equivalent  to  both  .  .  .  and,  would  signify  that  the 
females  as  urU  as  the  males  were  thus  guilty.  The 
word  ti.^p  (xprjdiv)  is  to  be  supplied  after  the  article  rriv 
in  the  last  clause. — (F.) 

-  The  first  word  for  males  is  a  later  form  for  apa-tve^, 
which  occurs  twice  in  this  verse  (below),  and  generally 
in  the  New  Testament.  Some  important  MSS.  have 
here  the  older  and  more  usual  word,  and  there  seems  to  i 


be  no  reason  for  using  two  different  forms  in  the  same 
verse.  Bitmed,  etc.  The  verb  being  a  corapoiuid  is 
equivalent  to  burned  on/,  and  since  it  is  passive  in  form 
it  may  be  passively  rendered :  were  fired  or  were  infiamed. 
The  two  classes  of  males  are  more  particularly  char- 
acterized in  1  Cor,  6 :  9,  as  apatviKolTai  and  it-akaxoi. 
Bengel  says  that  "in  stigmatizing  sins  we  mu.st  often 
call  a  spade  a  spade."  Yet  no  one  can  accuse  the  apos- 
tle of  giving  an  unduly  minute  or  indelicate  descrip- 
tion of  the  abominations  of  pagan  sensuality.— (F.) 


54 


EOMANS. 


[Ch.  I. 


seemly,  and  receiving  in  themselves  that  recompense 
of  their  error  which  was  meet. 


working  unseemliness,  and  receiving  in  themselves 
that  recompense  ol  their  error  which  was  due. 


Receiving  .  .  .  that  recompense  of  their 
error  which  was  meet.  If  by  their  'error' 
is  meant  their  unnatural  lusts,  then  the  '  rec- 
ompense' must  be  understood  to  mean  the 
physical  and  moral  consequences  of  such 
vices  —  bodily  disease  and  pain,  impotence 
and  premature  decay,  mental  imbecility,  and 
corruption  of  the  heart,  conscience,  and  imagi- 
nation— in  a  word,  the  defilement  and  debase- 
ment of  the  whole  man.  But  if  the  'error' 
means  the  forsaking  of  God,  then  the  '  meet 
recompense'^  will  be  those  unnatural  vices 
themselves,  or,  rather,  their  being  abandoned 
of  God  to  commit  tiiem.  This  last  explana- 
tion accords  best  with  the  term  error ^  which 
means  literally,  "  wandering,"  and  so  is  very 
suitable  to  express  their  wandering  from  God, 
while  it  seems  loo  mild  a  term  to  be  applied 
to  their  abominable  and  unnatural  sensual 
lusts;  and  this  explanation,  too,  is  precisely 
in  agreement  with  the  entire  context. 

In  proof  of  the  commonness  of  these  un- 
natural vices  among  the  ancient  heathen.  Dr. 
Tholuck  has  accumulated  abundant  evidence 
out  of  their  own  testimonies.  See  "Biblical 
Kepository,"  Vol.  II,  1832,  January  number, 
pp.  80-123;  April  number,  pp.  246-290;  July 
number,  pp.  441-494.  Martial  goes  so  far  as 
to  say,  "  No  one  is  so  tenderly  modest  as  to 
fear  being  detected  in  their  commission." 
[Dr.  Dollinger,  in  his  "Heidenthum  and 
Judenthum,"  says  (as  quoted  by  Dr.  Schaff 
in  Lange)  that  "among  the  Greeks  the  vice 
of  pederasty  showed  itself  with  all  the  symp- 
toms of  a  great  national  disease,  like  a  moral 
miasma.  It  revealed  itself  as  a  feeling  which 
worked  with  more  strength  and  energy  than 
the  love  of  woman  among  other  peoples;  it 
■was  more  immoderate,  more  passionate  in  its 
outbreaks.  It  was  characterized  by  frantic 
jealousy,  unbounded  devotion,  sensual  ardor, 
tender  dalliance,  nightly  lingering  before  the 
door  of  the  loved  one—in  fact,  everything 
that  belongs  to  the  caricature  of  natural, 
sexual  love.  Even  the  sternest  moralists  were 
in  the  highest  degree  indulgent  in  their  judg- 
ment of  the  practice — at  times  more  than  in- 


dulgent; they  treated  it  rather  as  a  pleasant 
joke,  and  tolerated  the  companionship  of  the 
guilty.      In  the  entire  literature  of  the  pre- 
Christian  period,  there  is  scarcely  a  writer  to  be 
found  who  declared  himself  decidedly  against 
it.      Kather  was  the   whole   society   infected 
with  it,  and  they  breathed  in  the  miasma  with 
the  air."]     The  apostle  refers  to  the  females 
first,  probably  as  the  most  glaring  proof  of 
the  general  depravity,  on  the  principle  that 
"the    corruption    of   the  best  things   is   the 
worst  of  all  corruption"    {corrxiptio  optimi 
pessima).     The  degrading  vices  are  still   so 
common   among  the  heathen,   that    modern 
missionaries  have  been  accused  by  them  of 
forging  this  account,  and   it  has  sometimes 
been  found  diflacult  to  convince  them  that  so 
accurate  a  picture  of  their  morals  was  painted 
so  long  ago.     Hence,  we  see  why  the  apostle 
refers  so  particularly  to  practices  so  disgust- 
ing:    they    were    very   common    among  the 
heathen;    they    were    intimately    connected 
with   the    rites   of   idolatry,    especially   with 
the  worship  of  Venus;   and  they  were  pecu- 
liarly illustrative  of  the  depth  of  degradation 
into   which  the  human    race  had    plunged. 
Contrast  this  true  picture  with  false  represen- 
tations often  made  of  the  comparative  inno- 
cence and  simplicity  of  the  heathen.     ["Those 
who  know  what  Greek  and  Roman  poets  have 
written  on  the  vices  of  their  countrymen  can 
best  appreciate  the  grave  and   modest  sim- 
plicity of  the  apostle's  language."     ("Bible 
Commentary.")    But  Paul  needed  not  to  read 
any  Greek  or  Eoman  books,  in  order  to  know 
and  to  describe  the  unbridled   licentiousness 
of  his  age.      Farrar,   on   this  point,  thus  re- 
marks:  "A  Jew  in  a  heathen  city  needed  no 
books  to  reveal  to  him  the  'depths  of  Satan.' 
In  this  respect,  how  startling  a  revelation  to 
the  modern  world  was  the  indisputable  evi- 
dence of  the  ruins  of  Pompeii !     Who  would 
have  expected   to  find   the   infamies  of   the 
Dead   Sea  cities  paraded  with   such   infinite 
shamelessness  in  every  street  of  a  little  pro- 
vincial town?     What  innocent  snow  could 
ever  hide  the  guilty  front  of  a  life  so  unspeak- 


1  Literally:  "Receiving  in  themselves  the  recom- 
pense of  their  error  which  it  was  necessary  "  (to  re- 
ceive).    "'0(^etAei,    notat   obligationem ;    iet,  necessUa- 


tem."  See  Trench  on  "New  Testament  Synonyms," 
p.  392.  For  the  reflexive  pronoun,  in  themselves,  West- 
cott  and  Hort  have  the  contracted  form  ourois. — (F.) 


Ch.  I.] 


ROMANS. 


55 


28  And  even  as  they  did  not  like  to  retain  God  in  I  28      And  even  as  they  i refused  to  have  God  in  iheir 
their  knowledge,  God  gave  them  over  to  a  reprobate  knowledj^e,   God  gave  them   up   unto   a   reprobate 

luind,  to  do  those  things  which  are  not  convenient ;         |        mind,   to  do  those   things   which   are  not   fitting; 


1  Gr.  did  not  approve. 


ably  abominable?  Could  anything  short  of 
the  earthquake  ha've  engulphed  it,  or  of  the 
volcano  have  burned  it  up?  And  if  Pompeii 
was  like  tliis,  we  may  judge,  from  the  works 
of  Aristophanes  and  Athenseus,  of  Juvenal 
and  Martial,  of  Petronius  and  Apuleius,  of 
Strato  and  Meleager — which  may  be  regarded 
as  the  '  pieces  justificatives'  of  St.  Paul's  esti- 
mate of  heathendotn — what  Tarsus  and  Ephe- 
sus,  what  Corinth  and  Miletus  were  likely  to 
have  been."  Corinth,  the  city  where  Paul 
wrote  this  letter,  had  a  reputation  pre-emi- 
nent above  all  other  cities  for  its  unblushing 
licentiousness,  and  he  had  but  to  open  his 
eyes  to  see  it.  "A  thousand  [female]  Hiero- 
douloi  were  consecrated  to  the  service  of  im- 
purity in  the  infamous  temple  of  Aphrodite 
Pandemos."  A  "Corinthian  girl"  was  but 
another  name  for  harlot,  and  to  "Corinthian- 
ize"  meant  to  practice  whoredom.  (See 
Smith's  "Greek  and  Koman  Antiq.,"  Art. 
Hetserae.)  "In  that  age,"  says  Meyer  (Actsis: 
20),  "fornication  was  reckoned  among  the 
adlaphora,  a  thing  morally  indifferent." 
Paul,  indeed,  was  writing  to  the  Komans, 
but  could  the  great  city  of  Rome  be  much 
purer  in  its  morals  than  the  "little  provincial 
town"  near  by? 

It  is  true,  as  Dr.  SchafF  remarks,  that  "the 
history  of  Christian  countries  often  ])resents 
a  similar  picture  of  moral  corruption,  with 
the  exception  of  those  unnatural  vices  de- 
scribed in  ver.  26,  27,  which  have  almost  dis- 
appeared, or  greatly  diminished  within  the 
pale  of  civilization.  .  .  .  But  there  remains 
this  radical  difference:  the  heathen  corrup- 
tions were  produced  and  sanctioned  by  the 
heathen  mythology  and  idolatry,  while  Chris- 
tian nations  are  corrupt  in  spite  of,  and  in 
direct  opposition  to,  Christianity,  which  raises 
the  highest  standard  of  virtue,  and  acts  con- 
tinually on  the  world  as  a  purifying  and 
sanctifying  power."] 

28.  A  third  recurrence  to  what  has  been  so 
plainly  said  in  ver.  24  and  26.  They  did  not 
like  to  retain  God  in  their  knowledge. 
[The  word  for  'knf)wledge'  is  a  compound, 
meaning  "full  knowledge,"  or  "clear discern- 
ment."   Meyer  says  their  (simple)  knowledge 


of  God  derived  from  the  revelation  of  nature 
(ver.  21.),  ought  to  havc  been  brought,  by  cul- 
tivation, to  this  full  knowledge — a  pen- 
etrating and  living  knowledge  of  God  (Eph.  i ; 
17;  1  Cor.  13: 12.);  but  instead  of  this  being  the 
case,  they  had  become  "Gentiles  who  know 
not  God."]  "We  are  here  reminded  again 
that  they  had  voluntarily  and  wickedly 
quenched  divine  light  which  God  had  pro- 
vided for  them.  (v. r.  18-21.)  God  gave  them 
over  to  a  reprobate  mind.  The  retributive 
abandonment  of  them  by  God  is  here  a  third 
time  noted.  In  ver.  24  and  26,  it  was  to  un- 
cleanness  or  impurity,  and  to  shameless  pas- 
sions; here  it  is  to  a  reprobate  mind.  There 
is  an  etymological  relation  between  this  word 
reprobate  and  the  verb  'did  not  like,'  in  the 
first  clause  of  the  verse,  which  does  not  at  all 
appear  in  our  translation.  On  the  supposi- 
tion that  the  apostle  designed  to  have  it  noted, 
translators  and  commentators  have  made 
various  ingenious  endeavors  to  express  it  in 
English.  Alford's  expedient  is  perhaps  as 
satisfactory  and  as  little  forced  as  any  :  "  Be- 
cause they  reprobated  the  knowledge  of  God, 
God  gave  them  over  to  a  reprobate  minfl." 
[As  Alford  omits  certain  Greek  words  in  his 
rendering,  we  give  this  quite  literal  transla- 
tion which  preserves  the  paronomasia,  and 
pretty  clearly  expresses  the  sense:  "As  thej' 
did  not  approve  to  have  God  in  full  knowl- 
edge, God  gave  them  up  unto  an  unapproved 
mind" — that  is,  a  mind  rejected  of  him,  like 
worthless  coin  that  will  not  bear  the  test. 
The  verb  means  to  test,  to  prove,  to  approve. 
The  adjective,  occurring  in  seven  other  places, 
is,  by  the  Revised  Version,  rendered  rejected 
in  1  Cor.  9:  27;  Heb.  6:  8,  and  reprobate  in 
TitusI:  16;  2Tim.3:  8;  2  Cor.  13  :  5,6,7.]  To 
do  those  things  which  are  not  convenient. 
[Another  instance  of  the  figure  rneiosis,  where 
less  is  said  than  is  meant.  The  verb  in  the 
present  tense  denotes  an  habitual  doing.]  The 
word  'convenient'  here  is  equivalent  to  "be- 
coming," not  agreeable  to  the  nature  and 
duties  of  man.  In  the  same  sense,  the  same 
word  [with  a  different  prefix]  is  used  in  Eph. 
5:  4;  Philem.  8;  Col.  3:  18  (translated  "fit"). 
The  sense  in  which  we  now  commonly  use 


56 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  I. 


29  Being  filled  with  all  unrighteousness,  fornication, 
wickeduess,  covetousuess,  maliciousness  ;  full  ot  envy, 
murder,  debate,  deceit,  malignity  ;  whisperers, 

30  Backbiters,  haters  of  God,  despiteful,  proud,  boast- 
ers, inventors  of  evil  things,  disobedient  to  parents, 


29  being  filled  with  all  unrighteousness,  wickedness, 
covetousuess,  malieiousupss;   full  of  envy,  murder, 

30  strife,  deceit,    malignity ;    whisperers,    backbiters, 
1  hateful  to  God,  insolent,  haughty,  boastful,  invent- 


1  Or,  haters  of  God. 


the  word  .'convenient'  is  expressed  by  an 
entirely  diftorent  word,  as  in  Mark  6:  21;  1 
Cor.  16:  12.» 

29-31.  Being  filled  with  all  unright- 
eousness.  [The  participle  'filled'  agrees 
with  'them'  in  ver.  28,  the  understood  subject 
of  the  infinitive,  'to  do.'  Under  the  general 
head  of  'unrighteousness,'  Meyer  places  the 
vices  of  the  following  list  as  species.]  A  dark 
catalogue,  and  the  darkest  thing  about  it  is 
its  truthfulness.  We  will  not  dwell  upon 
each  separate  charge  in  this  divine  indictment 
of  sinful  human  nature,  nor  attempt  by  min- 
ute analysis  to  make  out  an  orderly  arrange- 
ment, which  apparently  was  not  aimed  at  by 
the  writer.  ["The  accidental  order  of  the 
arrangement  intimates  that  all  sins  which 
can  ever  occur  to  one's  mind  are  mutually 
related.  It  is,  as  it  were,  the  opening  of  a 
sackful  of  sins,  when  it  is  all  accident  how  the 
single  grains  fall  out."  (Philippi.)]  Let  some 
general  criticisms  suffice.  The  second,  and 
last  but  one,  in  this  list,  'fornication'  and 
'implacable,'  are  omitted  in  the  best  manu- 
scripts. In  several  places,  the  precise  order 
is  uncertain,  being  different  in  diflTerent  man- 
uscripts. The  change  in  ver.  29  of  'being 
filled'  to  'full'  seems  to  be  made  for  the  sake 
of  variety,  and  not  on  account  of  any  differ- 
ence in  the  sense:  as  the  former  expression 
requires  to  be  followed  by  "with,"  and  the 
latter  by  "of"  in  English,  so  the  correspond- 
ing Greek  words  require  a  change  in  the  form 
of  the  words  that  follow.  This  prevents  an 
unpleasant  repetition  of  the  same  grammati- 
cal forms.*  The  words  (aSiKi'a  and  vovr^pia)  trans- 
lated unrighteousness  and  Avickedness,  in 
ver.  29,  differ  in  this  respect,  that  the  latter  has 
a  more  active  and  energetic  quality,  which 


would  not  be  satisfied  with  depriving  others  of 
their  due,  but  would  delight  in  doing  them  as 
much  hariti  as  possible.  A  somewhat  similar 
distinction  seems  to  exist  between  the  words 
translated  maliciousness  (xaKiajand  malig- 
nity ((ca/corjeeta)  in  the  same  verse;  the  former  is 
simply  "badness,"  while  the  latter  carries 
with  it  the  notion  of  an  obstinate  perversity 
in  evil. 3  The  word  translated  debate  (fpts), 
in  the  same  verse,  is  commonly  translated 
'strife'  or  'contention'; 'debate'  only  here  and 
in  2  Cor.  12:  20.  [On  the  word  'deceit'  (JdAo?, 
literally,  a  bait),  Tholuck  quotes  Juvenal's 
"Quid  Komse  faciam?  Mentiri  nescio"  — 
"  What  can  I  do  at  Konie  ?  I  know  not  how 
to  lie."  The  word  Avhisperers,  in  contrast 
with  ((faTaAoAovs)  backbiters,  or,  rather,  open 
calumniators,  denotes  secret  maligners  or 
slanderers,  or  simply  tale  bearers.  Some  de- 
scendants of  this  tribe,  and  of  other  tribes 
mentioned,  remain  on  earth  until  this  day.] 
There  has  been  much  dispute  about  the 
sense  of  the  compound  word  translated 
haters  of  God  in  ver.  30;  the  presumption, 
from  its  composition  and  accentuation,  is 
strongly  in  favor  of  the  passive  sense,  hate- 
ful to  God.  Alford  says  "it  is  never 
found  in  an  active  sense,  but  ahuays  in  a 
passive."  Yet  the  active  sense  is  here  so 
much  more  appropriate  to  the  context,  the 
passive  would  put  the  word  so  out  of  due  rela- 
tion to  the  whole  catalogue,  that  there  is 
much  reason  for  regarding  our  common  trans- 
lation as  giving  the  correct  sense;  and  indeed 
this  active  sense  does  not  lack  the  authoritj'  of 
later  Greek  grammarians  and  commentators, 
as  Suidas  and  (Ecumenius  of  the  tenth  cen- 
tury. The  three  following  words,  translated 
despiteful,  proud,  boasters,  are  well  dis_ 


lOn  the  distinction  between  (ij-v  KaB-qKovTa,  "  the 
penus  of  that  which  is  unseemly")  and  (oiiic  avriKcv) 
(Eph.  5 :  4),  both  of  which  may  be  rendered  not  seemly, 
see  Meyer  on  this  passage.  In  later  Greek,  however, 
the  dependent  negative  (m'i)  seems  at  times  to  usurp 
the  place  of  the  direct  negative  {ov  or  ovk).  This  not 
liking  to  have  God  in  one's  knowledge  has  been  not 
only  the  occasion  of  unseemly  deeds  in  all  ages,  but  is 
really  the  source  of  all  the  deistical  infidel  literature 


which  has  been  written  against  the  Bible.  "A  bad 
life,"  as  the  infidel  and  profligate  Earl  of  Rochester 
acknowledged  when  he  came  to  himself,  "is  the  only 
grand  objection  to  this  book." — (F.) 

2  The  word  fiecrrov';,  full  of,  filled  full,  is  akin  to  our 
stuffed,  as  from  a  surfeit  in  eating. — (F.) 

3  Aristotle  defines  it  as  "the  disposition  to  take  every- 
thing in  the  worst  sense." 


Ch.  I.] 


ROMANS. 


57 


31  Without  understanding,  covenant-breakers,  with- 
out uatural  att'ection,  iuii)l!ic;il)le,  uuuiercilul : 
'62  Who,  knowing  the  judgment  of  God,  that  they 


31  ors  of  evil  things,  disobedient  to  parents,  without 
understanding,  covenant-breakers,  williout  natural 

32  atlection,  unmercitul :  who,  knowing  ibe  ordinance 
of   God,  that   they   who   practise  such   things  are 


tinguished  by  Archbishop  Trench  in  this 
triple  paraphrase,  "  insolent  and  injurious  in 
acts,  proud  in  thoughts,  boastful  in  words." 
Four  of  the  above  terms  are  the  same  that  are 
used  by  Paul  in  *2  Tim.  3:  23,  to  describe  the 
predicted  corruption  of  the  Ciiurch — namely, 
'boasters,'  'jtroud,'  'disobedient  to  parents,' 
'without  natural  affection.'  [A  proof  of  this 
want  of  "natural  aflection  "  is  found  in  the 
iiifaiiticide  which  is  practiced  to  such  an  in- 
conceivable extent  by  many  ancient  and 
modern  pagan  nations.  Some  pairs  of  words 
in  tlie  above  list  seem  to  be  brought  together 
through  similarity  of  sound,  as  \i>9ovov,  <i>6vov, 
aavvirovi,  auruvOerovi)  cnvy,  murder,  seiiseless, 
faithless.  For  similar  lists  of  vices,  see  2  Cor. 
12:  20;  Gal.  5:  19;  Eph.  5:  3;  1  Tim.  1:  9; 
2  Tim.  3:  2.  Some  nine  or  ten  of  the  sins 
enumerated  here  are  expressly  referred  to  in 
these  lists.  And  all  these  vices  and  all  the 
corruption  indicated  in  these  dark  catalogues 
result,  in  the  apostle's  view,  from  dishonoring 
God,  and  from  being  unthankful  for  his  mer- 
cies.] We  add  one  more  remark  only,  in 
regard  ta  the  division  of  the  verses.  It  does 
not  seem  very  happj',  in  several  respects, 
particularly  in  disregarding  the  changes  of 
syntax  in  tiie  original.  The  word  '  wliisperers,' 
for  instance,  which  is  the  first  of  a  series  of 
personal  nouns,  following  a  list  of  abstract 
terms,  is  very  awkwardly  separated  from  the 
word  'backbiters,'  to  which  it  has  so  close'a 
relation,  both  in  form  and  in  sense.  Ver.  29 
should  end  with  the  word  'malignity,' and 
ver.  30  begin  with  the  word  'backbiters.' 
The  arrangement  would  also  be  more  fully 
correspondent  with  the  change  of  form  in  the 
original,  if  ver.  29  were  divided  into  two,  the 
fir^t  ending  with  '  maliciousness,'  the  last  of 
the  words  that  are  construed  with  the  parti- 
ciple followed  by  'with,'  and  the  second  be- 
ginning with  the  adjective  'full.'  [We  may 
here  properly  ask  if  the  apostle  does  not,  in 
this  description  of  the  Gentile  world,  himself 
slander  the  Gentiles?  Did  every  Greek  and 
Roman  man  and  woman  with  whom  he  met 
boar  such  a  character  as  he  here  depicts? 
Would  he  deny  to  each  and  all  of  them  any 
und  every  good  trait?    Could  he  deny  some- 


thing akin  to  "  natural  aifection"  even  to  the 
Maltese  "barbarians'"  who  showed  to  him  and 
to  his  shipwrecked  companions  "no  common 
kindness"?  We  think  not.  In  the  next 
chapter,  ver.  14,  26,  he  implies  that  some 
Gentiles,  at  least,  might  "do  by  nature  the 
things  of  the  la„w."  He  evidently  speaks  of 
Gentiles  as  a  class,  and  he  no  more  slanders 
them  than  does  the  brother  of  the  Gallio  who 
befriended  him,  the  moralist  Seneca,  the 
tutor  of  Nero,  when  he  says:  "All  is  full  of 
crime  and  vice;  there  is  more  committed  than 
can  be  healed  by  jiunisliment.  A  monstrous 
prize  contest  of  wickedness  is  going  on.  The 
desire  to  sin  increases,  and  shame  decreases 
day  b^'  day.  .  .  .  Vice  is  no  longer  practiced 
secretly,  but  in  open  view.  Vileness  gains  in 
every  street  and  in  ever^'  breast  to  such  an 
extent  that  innocence  has  become  not  only 
rare,  but  has  ceased  to  exist."  Paul's  descrip- 
tion, moreover,  is  written  from  that  divine 
standpoint  which  sees  adultery  in  a  look  and 
murder  in  a  thought,  and  which  looks  on 
the  secret  intents  and  desires  of  the  hearts. 
Written  history,  full  of  crimes  as  it  is,  is  a 
spotless  sheet  compared  with  the  unwritten 
history  of  the  thoughts  and  inclinations  of 
men's  hearts.] 

32.  Who  knowing  the  judgment  of  God. 
The  same  compound  relative  which  begins 
ver.  25  begins  this  also:  thej/,  being  such  as 
know  the  judgment  of  God.  'The  judgment  of 
God'  is  here  equivalent  to  "the  righteous  sen- 
tence of  God."  "  His  judgments"  may  mean 
either  the  judgments  which  he  executes  with 
his  hand,  or  the  judgments  which  he  declares 
with  his  mouth.  The  former  sense  is  much 
the  most  common  in  our  ordinary  speech  ;  the 
latter  is  quite  as  common  in  the  Scriptures, 
much  more  so  in  the  Book  of  Psalms,  and 
pre-eminently  in  Psalm  119.  Here  too  the 
sense  is  nearer  the  latter  than  the  former 
— that  is,  it  means  the  judgments  which  he 
forms  as  to  human  conduct,  though  we  can- 
not properly  say  in  this  instance  the  judg- 
ments of  his  mouth,  because  the  persons  here 
referred  to  are  not  supposed  to  know  bis  re- 
vealed law.  Thej'  know  the  judgment  of  God 
therefore  by  the  law  written  in  their  own  con- 


58 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  I. 


■which  commit  such  things  are  worthy  of  death,  not 
only  do  the  same,  but  have  pleasure  iu  them  that  do 
them. 


worthy  of  death,  not  only  do  the  same,  but  also 
consent  with  them  that  practise  them. 


sciences.  ('2:14,  is.)  [The  participle  being  a 
compound  means  that  they  fully  knew,  were 
perfectly  aware  of,  the  judgment  of  God. 
Degraded  and  sunk  in  vice  as  they  were,  their 
consciences  were  not  so  hardened  and  dead 
but  that  they  clearly  recognized  the  voice  of 
duty  and  acknowledged  the  demerit  of  trans- 
gression—  "their  conscience  bearing  witness 
therewith,  their  thoughts  one  with  another 
accusing  or  else  excusing."  The  barbarians 
of  Melita  had  clear  ideas  of  justice  and  of  the 
ill  desert  of  wrong  doing.  (Acta  as:  4.)  ]  That 
they  which  commit  such  things.  [Alford 
finds  in  this  clause  God's  righteous  sentence.] 
The  word  here  translated  'commit'  is  the 
same  as  that  translated  ^do'  at  the  end  of  the 
verse.  The  word  translated  'do'  in  the  previ- 
ous clause  is  a  d liferent  word.  Both  are  very 
common  in  this  Epistle,  and  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament generally.  It  will  help  to  put  the 
English  reader  more  nearly  on  a  level  with 
the  intelligent  reader  of  the  original,  if  we 
distinguish  between  these  words  by  translat- 
ing the  ft)rmer  practice  and  the  latter  do. 
This  verse  will  then  read,  "Who  knowing 
the  judgment  of  God,  that  they  which  prac- 
tice such  things  are  worthy  of  death,  not  only 
do  the  same,  but  have  pleasure  in  those  who 
practice  them."  [The  verb  whence  our  "prac- 
tice '  is  derived  (n-patro-o))  seems  to  denote  a 
habit  and  facility  of  doing,  while  the  verb  "to 
do"  (n-oi€<o)  refers  rather  to  single  acts  per- 
formed often,  with  some  degree  of  effort  or 
difficulty.']  We  shall  adhere  to  this  distinc- 
tion wherever  these  words  occur  in  this  Epis- 
tle. It  is  to  be  regretted  that  the  translators 
of  the  Common  Version  did  not  adopt  this 
rule;  but  they  tell  us  in  their  preface  that 
they  studiously  avoided  this  "servile  uni- 
formity," as  they  style  it.  In  doing  so,  they 
often  mislead  the  English  reader,  and  render 
H  concordance  of  the  English  Bible  of  much 
less  value  than  it  would  have  been  had  they 
adh<}red  more  strictly  to  this  wholesome  rule 
of  uniformity  in  rendering  the  same  Greek 
word  into  English.  Are  worthy  of  death. 
It  is  well  to  note  the  use  of  the  word  'death' 
in  this  first  instance  of  its  occurrence  in  this 
Epistle.     It  defines  itself  here  as  being  that  of 


which  transgressors  of  God's  law  are  worthy 
— in  other  words,  as  synonymous  with  the 
desert  and  penalty  of  sin.  Compare  5:  12-17, 
and  particularly  6:  23.  [As  the  poets  of 
Pagan  antiquity  dwelt  much  upon  the  pun- 
ishments inflicted  in  hades,  the  invisible 
world,  so  death  to  these  heathen  minds  is  sup- 
posed by  most  to  have  reference  to  the  pun- 
ishment of  sin  beyond  the  grave.  "Death,  in 
the  sense  of  punishment  in  the  other  world." 
(Boise.)  Any  infliction  of  physical  death  is, 
of  course,  out  of  the  question.  Quer^' :  If  the 
modern  heathen,  like  the  ancient,  are  "worthy 
of  death,"  can  it  be  supposed  that  God  is 
under  obligation  to  provide  for  them  a  future 
probation?]  Not  only  do  the  same,  but 
have  pleasure  in  them  thai  do  {practice) 
them.  [In  the  Koman  Presbyter  Clement's 
first  letter  to  the  Corinthians  (oh.  le),  written 
in  the  last  part  of  the  first  century,  we  find  a 
virtual  quotation  from  these  last  four  verses. 
Clement's  reference  to  the  "blessed  Paul  the 
apostle,"  his  writings,  his  sufferings,  and  his 
preaching,  "both  in  the  east  and  in  the  west" 
— "even  to  the  limit  of  the  west" — is  a  very 
important  proof  of  the  genuineness  of  Paul's 
epistles.]  'Have  pleasure  in' — that  is,  ap- 
prove The  same  word  is  rendered  "allow" 
in  Luke  11:  48,  and  "consent  unto"  in  Acts 
8:  1  and  22:  20.  [In  this  last  reference  Paul 
charges  himself  with  this  aggravated  degree 
of  guilt  in  consenting  to  the  murder  of  Ste- 
phen.] The  form  of  expression  in  the  last 
two  clauses  of  this  verse,  not  only—but  also 
(the  "also"  is  in  the  original,  though  it  does 
not  appear  in  the  English)  implies  that  the  ap- 
proval of  such  acts  in  others  argues  a  greater 
degree  of  depravity  than  the  doing  of  them 
ourselves.  Men  may  do  such  things,  under 
stress  of  temptation,  without  approving  them. 
But  when  they  deliberately  and  without  being 
under  temptation  approve  of  them  in  others, 
this  indicates  a  more  profound  moral  corrup- 
tion. Our  judgment  of  other  men's  actions  is 
usually  more  unbiased,  and  therefore  more 
indicative  of  settled  moral  character  than  our 
judgment  of  our  own.  [It  would  seem  as  if  a 
man  might  be  wicked  enough  in  himself,  and 
be  satisfied  with  his  own  wickedness,  without 


1  See  more  fully  under  iroieu,  in  Thayer's  "  Lexicon." — (F.) 


Ch.  II.] 


KOMANS. 


59 


CHAPTEK  II. 


THEREFORE  thou  art  inexcusable,  O  man,  whoso- 
ever thou  art  t  hat  judgest :  fur  wherein  thou  judgest 
another,  thou  coiidemnest  thyself;  for  thou  that  judg- 
est doest  the  same  things. 


1  Wherefore  thou  art  without  excuse,  O  man,  who- 
soever thou  art  that  judgest:  for  wherein  thou  judg- 
est 1  another,  tlioucondemnest  thyself;  for  thou  that 

2  judgest  dost  practise   the  same  things.    ^And   we 


1  Gr.  the  other 2  Many  aucienl  authoriiies  read  For. 


seeking  to  injure  others  or  enticing  them  to 
commit  sin,  or  rejoicing  in  the  sins  which 
they  have  committed.  The  apostle,  in  this 
passage  and  elsewhere,  seems  to  indicate  that 
there  is  a  progress  in  wickedness  as  well  as  a 
growth  in  grace;  that  this  progress  is  ever 
downward,  and  that  it  has  in  itself  no  re- 
straining power.     Sin  does  not  cure  itself.] 


Ch.  2:  The  apostle  now  proceeds  to  show 
that  the  Jews  are  under  the  same  condemna- 
tion as  the  Gentiles;  but  he  introduces  this 
unwelcome  topic  skillfully,  using  general 
terms  at  first,  without  expressly  naming  the 
Jews.  Some  commentators  refer  the  first  half 
of  this  chapter  to  the  Gentiles,  either  to  their 
philosophers,  their  magistrates,  or  the  better 
sort  of  people  among  them,  in  distinction 
from  the  baser  multitude  described  in  the 
previous  chapter.  But  the  context,  and  espe- 
cially in  ver.  4,  5,  11,  is  decidedly  in  favor  of 
referring  it  to  the  Jews. 

[Godet  thus  introduces  the  thought  of  this 
chapter:  "In  the  midst  of  this  flood  of  pollu- 
tions and  iniquities  which  Gentile  society  pre- 
sents to  view,  the  apostle  sees  one  who,  like  a 
judge  from  the  heiglit  of  his  tribunal,  sends  a 
stern  look  over  the  corrupt  mass,  condemning 
the  evil  which  reigns  in  it,  and  applauding 
the  wrath  of  God  which  punishes  it.  It  is 
this  new  personage  whom  he  apostrophizes  in 
the  following  word."] 

1.  Therefore  (aib,  literall}'-,  on  which  ac- 
count, wherefore)  refers  to  the  previous  verse. 
Tliey  who  a2)prove  such  things  are  worthy  of 
death;  but  the  Jews  might  say  :  "We  disap- 
prove and  denounce  these  sins  of  the  Gen- 
tiles." 'Therefore,'  the  apostle  might  retort, 
you  are  surely  inexcusable  for  committing 
the  same.  [Meyer  makes  this  'therefore' 
take  a  retrospective  glance  over  the  whole  of 
the  last  chapter  after  ver.  17,  with  a  particu- 
lar reference  to  the  'inexcusable'  of  ver.  20, 
and  gives  the  idea  in  these  words:  "Before 
the  mirror  of  this  Gentile  life  of  sin  all  excuse 
vanishes  from  thee,  O  man,  who  judgest,  for 


this  mirror  reflects  thine  own  conduct,  which 
thou  thyself  therefore  condemnest  by  thy 
judgment.  A  deeply  tragic  de  te  narrntur, 
into  which  the  proud  Jewish  consciousness 
sees  itself  all  of  a  sudden  transferred."]  Tlie 
word  here  translated  'inexcusable'  is  pre- 
cisely the  same  as  that  translated  "without 
excuse"  in  1:  *20.  Both  should  be  translated 
alike.  In  the  Bible  Union  Version  both  are 
translated  "without  excuse";  this  is  an  im- 
provement upon  the  Common  Version,  but 
'inexcusable'  would  be  better  still  as  being 
nearer  to  the  original  in  form,  and  just  as 
near,  at  least,  in  sense.  O  man,  whosoever 
thou  art  that  judgest.  [This  'O  man'  is 
made  to  bear  the  name  Jew  in  ver.  17.  Butt- 
mann  remarks  ("Grammar,"  p.  140)  that  the 
interjection  does  not  occur  so  often  in  the 
New  Testament  with  the  vocative  as  it  does  in 
classic  Greek,  and  that  it  "generally  has  an 
emphatic  character,  and  so  contains  rather  an 
exclamation  than  a  simple  address."]  Using 
the  second  person  singular  here  instead  of  the 
third  plural,  as  in  the  previous  chapter,  Paul 
seems  to  imagine  one  of  his  own  countrymen 
present  and  condemning  the  sins  of  the  Gen- 
tiles. This  gives  great  vivacity  to  his  dis- 
course. Yet  he  purposely  uses  the  indefinite 
expression,  'whosoever  thou  art,' not  ready 
yet  to  call  out  the  Jew  by  name.  [Bishop 
Wordsworth  says,  Paul  uses  'man'  instead  of 
Jew,  because  "the  proposition  is  one  of  uni- 
versal application,  and  because  he  would  ap- 
proach tiie  Jew  with  gentleness,  and  not 
exasperate  and  alienate  him  by  any  abrupt 
denunciation."  "Whosoever  thou  art,  even 
if  thou  art  a  Jew."  (Fritzsche.)]  For  where- 
in thou  judgest  another.  ['Wherein,' 
"in  the  inatter  in  which."  (Alford. )]  The 
other  would  be  more  literal  than  'another'  — 
that  is,  the  other  party,  hinting  at  the  Jewish 
habit  of  separating  themselves  in  thought 
from  the  Gentiles,  almost  as  if  they  belonged 
to  a  diff'erent  species.  For  thou  that  judg- 
est doest  the  same  things.  [Paul  here 
suddenly  brings  home  to  the  Jew  Nnthfin's 
accusation  to  David:   "Thou  art  the  man." 


60 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  1 1. 


2  But  «e  are  sure  that  the  judgment  of  Goa  is  accord- 
ing to  truth  agaiust  Miem  wliieh  coiuinit  such  tilings. 

3  And  ihinkest  thou  this,  U  man,  that  judgest  tliein 
■which  do  sucIj  things,  and  doest  the  same,  that  thou 
shall  escape  the  judguieul  ol  God? 


know  that  the  judgment  of  God  is  according  to  truth 

3  against  them  that  pi  actise  such  things.    And  reckon- 

est  thuu  this,  ()  man,  who  judgest  them  that  practise 

such  things,  and  doest  the  same,  that  thou  shalt 


'Thou  that  judgest'  has  a  "reproachful  em- 
phasis." (Meyer.)  The  Jew,  and  especially 
the  Pharisee,  regarded  the  word  "sinners" 
as  but  another  name  for  Gentiles  (Gai.  2:15), 
and  characteristically  judged  them  as  being 
the  abandoned  of  God.  Philippi  says  that 
"this  passion  on  the  part  of  the  Jews  for  con- 
demning others  gives  the  apostle  an  excellent 
vantage  ground  for  the  judgment  he  has  to 
ptiss  up(.>n  them."]  Practicest,  or  dost  prac- 
tice, which  last  is  more  agreeable  to  the  ear, 
would  be  preferable  to  'doest,'  according  to 
tile  principle  laid  down  in  the  notes  on  the 
last  verse  of  Chapter  I.  The  apostle  asserts 
the  fact  that  the  Jews  (while  reprovingly 
judging  the  Gentiles  for  their  misdeeds)  prac- 
tice 'the  same  things'  (TaaOra),  and  leaves  it 
to  the  conscience  of  the  person  addressed. 
That  the  Jewish  nation  was  at  this  time  very 
corrupt,  and  that  many  of  the  worst  vices  of 
the  heathen  were  common  among  them,  is 
manifest  from  the  testimonies  of  Josephus  and 
the  Rabbins,  as  well  as  froni  the  New  Testa- 
ment. They  may  have  been  comparatively 
free  from  idolatry  in  its  most  literal  form ; 
but  they  were  just  as  truly  transgressors  of 
the  moral  law  of  God,  and  so  virtually  prac- 
ticed the  same  things  as  the  Gentiles.  The 
principle  "of  the  apostle"s  argument  com- 
mends itself  to  common  sense;  Cicero  states 
it  substantially  in  these  words:  "All  things 
which  you  blame  in  another,  you  are  bound 
to  avoid  yourself."  ("Oration  against  Ver- 
ros,"5.) 

2.  But  we  are  sure — we  hiow,  that  is, 
everyone  knows:  our  own  nature  assents  to 
the  proposition.  ["Paul  thus  implies  the 
tacit  concurrence  of  the  Jew  in  this  sen- 
tence of  condemnation."  (Boise.)]  The  read- 
ing "for"  in  place  of  'but'  has  the  better 
support  from  the  manuscripts.  [Eetaining 
the  'but'  of  our  common  and  revised  text,  we 
snould  have  this  meaning:  "you  may  judge 
falsely  and  hypocritically,  'but'  the  judg- 
ment of  God  is  according  to  truth."]     The 


empliasis  of  the  statement  seems  to  belong  to 
the  latter  clause  of  the  verse — the  judgment 
of  God  is  against  them  that  practice  such 
things,  and  this  judgment  is  according  to  the 
truth  of  the  case,  without  any  partiality  ;  ac- 
cording to  facts  and  character,  without  regard 
to  the  distinction  between  Jew  and  Gentile,  or 
to  any  external  difference.  ["The  judgment 
of  God,  unlike  the  inconsistent  judgment  of 
man  in  ver.  1,  is  directed  according  to  truth 
against  the  doers  of  evil."  ("  Bible  Commen- 
tary.") For  "commit"  read  ''practice'  as  in 
the  Revised  Version.] 

3.  And  thiukest  thou  this,  [But  thinkest 
thou,  etc. — i.  e.,  though  thou  knovvest  that 
God's  judgment  is  according  to  truth]  O  man, 
that  judgest  them  Avhich  do  {practice) 
such  things.  The  question  here,  as  often  in 
Paul's  epistles,  and  indeed  in  argumentative 
and  rhetorical  discourse  generally,  is  equivti- 
lent  to  an  emphatic  negative.  [The  word 
translated  do  (Trpao-o-o)),  which  has  already 
occurred  thrice  in  this  chapter,  is  rightly  ren- 
dered joraciice  in  the  Revised  Version,  and  is 
thus  distinguished  from  doest  (Troiiy)  in  the 
next  clause.]  That  thou  shalt  escape. 
'Thou'  is  emphatic:  its  very  presence  in  the 
original  shows  this  ;  for  the  forms  of  the  verb, 
in  Greek,  as  in  many  other  languages,  suffi- 
ciently determine  the  number  and  person,  so 
that  the  pronoun  is  not  needed,  except  when 
there  is  some  reason  for  emphasizing  it.^  "  If 
others  cannot  escape  3'our  judgment,  do  you 
think  that  you  can  escape  God's?" — Calvin. 
[This  utterance  of  the  apostle  sounds  like  the 
voice  of  one  crying  in  the  wilderness,  calling 
to  repentance  those  self-righteous  ones  who, 
while  pronouncing  a  condemnatory  judgment 
on  others,  felt  themselves  secure  as  being  the 
children  of  Abraham,  and  therefore  exempt 
from  the  judgment  of  God.  "According  to 
the  Jewish  conceit,  only  the  Gentiles  were  to 
be  judged,  whereas  all  Israel  were  to  share  in 
the  Messianic  kingdom  as  its  native  children, 
Matt.  8:  12."   (Meyer.)] 


1  Buttmanji,in  his  "Grammar  of  the  New  Testament 
Greek,"  sees  in  the  language  of  the  New  Testament  a 
greater  departure  from  classic  usage  than  Winer  was 
incliued  to  acknowledge,  and  thinks  "  the  personal  pro- 


nouns were  frequently  employed  where  no  reason  of 
importance  is  obvious,"  and  refers  to  this  passage  as  an 
example  (with  others),  but,  as  it  seems  to  us,  without 
due  reason.— (F.) 


Ch.  II.] 


ROMANS. 


61 


4  Or  despisest  thou  the  riches  of  his  gooduess  and 
forbearauce  aud  loiigsulterJug;  not  knowing  that  ihe 
goodness  of  liod  leauetli  thee  to  repentance? 


4  escape  the  judgment  of  Uod?  Or  despisest  thou  the 
riches  of  liis  goodness  and  forbearance  aud  lougsuf- 
feriug,  not  knowing  l  bat  tlie  goodness  of  God  lead<.tli 

5  thee  to  repentance?  but  alter  thy  hardness  and  im- 


4.  Or  despisest  thou,  etc.  The  force  of 
the  disjunctive  conjunction  [here  drawing 
attention  to  a  new  question] '  may  periiaps  be 
exphiined  in  this  way:  Do  you  imagine, 
■witiiout  any  pretense  of  reason,  thai  you  shall 
escape  God's  judgment?  or,  ["in  case  thou 
hast  not  til  is  conceit"  (Meyer)],  do  you  base 
your  hope  of  escape  from  future  retribution 
on  the  forbearance  of  God  hitherto?  If  so, 
that  is  a  flagrant  abuse  of  that  forbearance, 
which  is  in  affect  despising  it,  under  pretense  of 
honoring  it.-  The  riches  of  his  goodness, 
etc.  'liiches,'  as  synonymous  with  abun- 
dance and  greatness,  is  a  very  common  ex- 
pression with  the  apostle.  (»:  23;  ll:  33;  Eph.  1:  7; 
2;  4.  7;  3:  16;  Col.  1 :  27.)       '  His  gOcdnCSS,'   his  kind- 

iiess  expressed  in  bestowing  favors  and  with- 
holding punishment. 3  Forbearance  and 
long  suffering.  [Paul  speaks  of  the  "wrath 
of  God,"  but  these  words  show  us  that  he 
is  "slow  to  wrath."  By  the  repetition  of  the 
connective  'and,'  as  also  by  the  repeated  use 
of  the  article  (equivalent  in  the  last  two 
i.'istances  to  the  pronoun  'his),  the  apostle 
seems  desirous  to  dwell  upon  and  to  empha- 
size the  merciful  attributes  of  God.  Most 
expositors  regard  the  forbearance  and  the 
long-suttering  as  explanatory  of  the  goodness, 
as  if  it  read:  'Even  of  his  forbearance  and 
his  long-sutfering';  but  it  seems  most  natural 
to  regard  them  as  having  the  same  regimen 
as  goodness — i.  e.,  in  the  genitive  case,  after 
riches.]  The  former  word  expresses  his  slow- 
ness to  inflict  punishment;  the  latter,  his 
slowness  to  take  oflfense.  The  former,  as  the 
actual  result,  proceeds  from  the  latter,  as  the 
abiding  inward  cause.  The  former,  moreover, 
seems  to  hint — so,  perhaps,  does  the  latter, 
though  somewhat  less  obviously,  at  the  limit, 
which  may  not  be  passed.  God  holds  back 
his  vengeance  for  a  while;  he  suflTers  long, 
but  not  forever.  They  who  think  they  m&y 
continue  to  live  in  sin  with  impunity,  because 
they   have   been   so  long   unpunished,    maj' 


fancy  that  they  are  tnagnifying  God's  good- 
ness; but  in  reality  they  are  vilifying  it, 
abusing  his  forbearance,  despising  his  long 
suft'ering,  by  their  contemptuous  unconcern 
as  to  the  holy  purpose  of  it.  Compare  2 
Peter  3:  9.  [Trench,  defining  "long-sutteriiig' 
(fiaxpoBvuia)  and  'enduiance'  {vnoixovri) ,  says 
the  former  will  be  found  to  express  patience 
ill  regard  to  persons,  the  latter  in  respect  of 
things;  and  that  of  these  two,  "only  '  long- 
surt'ering'  is  an  attribute  of  God."]  Not 
knowing.  Not  knowing  to  any  practical 
purpose — a  guilty  ignorance.  They  might 
know  it,  and  ought  to  know  it.  Leadeth 
thee  to  repentance.  ["Objectively  spoken." 
(DeWette. )  God's  forbearance  and  mercies 
despised  lead  to  indifterence  in  a  life  of  sin 
and  to  a  treasuring  up  of  wrath  rather  than 
to  repentance.  Paul  in  his  preaching  incul- 
cated "repentance  toward  God,"  as  well  as 
"faith  toward  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  (Acts 
20:  21;  also  17:  30;  26: 20.)  Yet  in  the  epistlcs  he 
uses  the  noun  only  here  and  in  2  Cor.  7:  9, 
10;  2  Tim.  2:  25,  and  the  verb  "repent"  only 
once,  2  Cor.  12:  21 — faith,  rather  than  repent- 
ance, being  the  predominant  word  in  the 
epistles.  Ellicott,  however,  remarks  that  he 
partially  replaces  these  words  b}^  reconcile, 
reconciliation,  etc.]  The  form  of  the  verb 
does  not  necessarily  express  the  full  accom- 
plishment of  the  result,  but  the  design  and 
tendency,  a  leading  toward  this  result,  which 
is  often  felt,  where  it  is  not  yielded  to,  but 
even  consciously  resisted.  ["God's  leading  is 
as  real  as  man's  resistance  to  being  led." 
(GifTord.)]  This  would  be  better  expressed 
in  our  language,  with  equal  fidelity  to  the 
original,  by  the  form,  "is  leading  thee." 
[Paul  teaches  that  God  in  his  benignity 
wishes  none  to  be  lost,  but  would  have  all 
men  to  be  saved,  to  come  to  repentance,  and 
to  the  acknowledging  of  the  truth.  Com- 
pare 1  Tim.  2:  4.  Yet  men  living  under 
the    full    blaze    of   gospel    light    reject    the 


1  Some  make  the  question  end  with  repentance,  others 
with  God  in  the  next  verse,  while  Alford  thinks  "the 
enquiry  loses  itself  in  the  digressive  clauses  following, 
and  nowhere  comes  pointedly  to  an  end."' — (F.) 

2  This  as  a  yeTbof/eflhig  (hence, caring  for,  contemn- 
ing, admiring)  is  usually  followed  by  the  genitive,  the 


object  being  "conceived  as  operating  upon  the  feeling 
subject — consequently,  as  the  point  from  which  the 
feeling  proceeds." — Winer,  204. — (F.) 

^Trench  call  this  xP'?<''toti)s  (goodness  or  benignity) 
a  "beautiful  word,"  and  it  occurs  in  the  New  Testament 
only  in  the  writings  of  Paul.— (F.) 


62 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  II. 


5  But,  after  thy  hardness  and  impenitent  heart, 
treasurest  up  unto  thyself  wrath  against  the  day  of 
wrath  and  revelaiiou  of  the  righteous  judgment  of 
God; 


penitent  heart  treasurest  up  for  thyself  wrath  in  the 

day  of  wrath  and  revelation  of  the  righteous  judg- 

6  ment  of  God;  who  will  render  to  every  man  aceord- 


truth,   and  choose   not  to  repent   nor  to  be 
saved.] 

5.  But,  after  thy  hardness — that  is,  ac- 
cording to  tliy  hardness,  agreeable  to  its  na- 
ture, and  proportioned  to  its  degree.  "When 
thou  are  neither  softened  by  kindness,  nor 
subdued  by  fear,  what  can  be  harder  than 
thou  art?"  (Theophylact. )  And  impeni- 
tent heart.  This  word  iinpenitent  is  found 
only  here.  [What  sinners  should  especially 
dread  in  their  deferring  of  repentance  is  the 
hardening  process  of  sin,  by  which  repent- 
ance becotnes  at  last  an  impossibility.  Fritz- 
sche  and  Pliilippi  understand  the  word  '  im- 
penitent' to  mean  in  this  phice  not  only 
unrepentant,  but  incapable  of  repentance. 
The  epithet  is  placed  before  the  noun  to  give 
it  a  slight  emphasis.  (Winer,  p.  524. )]  Treas- 
urest up  unto  thyself  wrath.  The  expres- 
sion to  'treasure  up'  is  generally  applied  to 
something  good  and  valuable,  or  at  least  so 
regarded;  but  is  sometitnes  used  of  evil 
things,  both  in  the  New  Testament  and  in 
other  writings.  The  noun  is  so  used  in  Luke 
6  :  45.  '  Treasurest  up '  here  is  heaj^est  up, 
the  idea  of  abundance,  not  that  of  quality, 
being  predonninant.  [This  treasuring  up  ot 
wrath  contrasts  sadly  with  the  riches  of  God's 
goodness;  but  according  to  Paul's  representa- 
tion it  is  the  sinner  (and  not  God)  who  is 
heaping  up  for  himself  this  fearful  treasure. 
"What  thou  layest  up,  a  little  every  day, 
thou  wilt  find  a  mass  hereafter."  (Augustine.)] 
Against  the  day  of  wrath — literally,  in  the 
day  of  ivrath,  to  be  signally  manifested,  to 
break  out,  in  the  day  of  wrath.  [In  refer- 
ence to  this  "day,"  compare  ver.  16.  It 
stands  without  the  article,  but  is  suiRciently 
defined  by  the  nouns  in  the  genitive  which 
follow  it.  The  omission  of  the  article  is  some- 
times owing  to  the  use  of  a  preposition  (Winer, 
126),  and  sometimes  the  article  is  omitted  on 
the  common  principle  of  "correlation,"  by 
which  "  if  the  governing  noun  is  without  the 
article,  the  governed  will  be  equally  so" 
(Ellicott),  and  vice  versa.  Compare  2  Cor. 
6:2;  Eph.  4:  30;  Phil.  1 :  6.     Some  few  man- 


uscripts, versions,  and  Fathers  have  an  a7id 
after  revelation.]  And  revelation  of  the 
righteous  judgment  of  God.  'Kighteous 
judgment'  is  expressed  here  by  a  single  com- 
pound word,  not  elsewhere  found. ^  The  day 
referred  to  will  be  a  day  of  completed  redemp- 
tion to  the  godly;  a  day  of  wratli  to  the  un- 
godly. •  See  how  closely  these  two  opposite 
contemporaneous  results  are  brouglit  together 
in  2  Thess.  1  :  6-10.  God's  abused  goodness  is 
thus  made  the  occasion  of  just  the  oi)posite 
results  to  those  which  it  was  intended  to  pro- 
duce. [This  "day  of  revelation"  (iiroKdkvxijii) 
has  probable  reference  to  the  revelation  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  from  heaven.  See  1  Cor. 
1 :  7 ;  2  Thess.  1 :  7 ;  1  Peter  1 :  7,  13 ;  4 :  13. 
In  other  epistles  the  apostle  speaks  of  the 
"future  appearing"  (enKjxxveLa)  or  "manifes- 
tation" of  Christ  (see  2  Thess.  2:  8;  1  Tim.O: 
14;  2  Tim.  1:  10;  4:  1,  8;  Titus  2:  13);  or  of 
his  "coming"  or  "presence"  (napovaia).  See 
1  Cor.  15:  23;  1  Thess.  2:  19;  3:  13;  4:  15;  5: 
23;  2  Thess.  2:  1,  8;  see  also  Matt.  24:  3,  27, 
37,  39;  James  5:  7,  8;  2  Peter  1:  16;  3:  4,  12; 
1  John  2 :  28.^  But  in  tliis  Ejiistle  he  does  not 
expressly  mention  the  coming  or  day  of  the 
Lord,  tliough  in  13:  12  he  affirms  that  "the 
day  is  at  hand."  Olshausen  supposes  that  at 
the  date  of  this  Epistle  Paul  had  changed  his 
views  as  to  the  near  coming  of  Christ,  and 
that  he  no  longer  expected  to  live  until  his 
Lord's  return.  But  in  nearly  all  his  later 
letters  there  is  expressed  more  or  less  of  this 
expectation.  "Our  Lord  cometh"  {inapav aed). 
Even  in  2  Timothy,  when  the  time  of  his  de- 
parture had  come,  he  speaks,  as  with  his  dying 
breath,  of  the  day  and  the  appearing  of  the 
Lord,  of  being  preserved  unto  his  heavenly 
kingdom,  and  he  classes  himself  with  those 
who  have  loved  and  who  still  love  his  appear- 
ing. 2  Tim.  1:  12;  4:  1,  8,  18;  compare  1 
Tim.  6:  14.  Surely  in  this  representation  we 
can  find  no  evidence  of  mistaken  or  changed 
views.  And  in  his  earlier  epistles,  though  he 
says,  as  in  1  Thess.  4:  15,  "We  which  are  alive 
and  remain  unto  the  coming  of  the  Lord," 
yet  in  1  Corinthians,  which  was  written  but  a 


'For  other  newly-constructed  words  in  the  New  Testament,  see  Winer,  p.  25.— (F.) 

2  The  word  nopovcria  occurs  elsewhere  in  1  Cor.  16 :  17 ;  2  Cor.  7 :  6, 7 ;  10 :  10  ;  Phil.  1 :  26 ;  2 :  12 ;  2  Thess.  2 :  9.— (F.) 


Cn.  II.]                                            ROMANS. 

63 

6  Who  will   render  to  every  man  according  to  his  |    7  ing  to  his  works 
deeds :                                                                                           1 

to  them  that  by  i  patience  in  well- 

1  Or,  steadfastness. 

short  ti  ine  previous  to  our  Epistle,  and  in  which 
he  speaks  repeatedly  of  the  coining  and  the 
day  of  Clirist,  and  affirms,  "  We  all  shall  not 
sleep,"  etc.,  closing  indeed  with  maran-atha; 
he  nevertheless  says:  "God  hath  both  raised 
up  the  Lord,  and  will  also  raise  tip  us  by  his 
own  power.  1  Cor.  16:  14;  compare  2  Cor.  4: 
14.  Thus  nothing  decisive  can  be  determined 
from  the  use  of  "us"'  and  "we"  in  this  con- 
nection. Whatever  Paul  may  have  thought 
of  the  day  and  revelation  of  Christ,  he  could 
say:  "He  which  hath  begun  a  good  worl<  in 
you  will  perform  it  until  the  day  of  Jesus 
Christ"  ;  could  speak  of  waiting  for  a  Sav- 
iour; could  say,  "The  Lord  is  at  hand,"  and 
yet  could  talk  of  life's  uncertainty  and  of  his 
departure,  as  we  do  of  ours,  and  of  his  hoping 
to  attain  unto  the  (blessed)  resurrection  from 
the  dead.  (puii.  i:6, 20-23;  3:  ii,  20;  4:5.)  It  is  as- 
tonishing to  see  how  ready  some  are  to  speak 
of  the  apostle's  mistaken  view  of  this  subject, 
and  of  his  finding  out  his  mistake.  Ellicott, 
on  the  phrase,  'day  of  Christ  Jesus,'  thus 
remarks:  "That  St.  Paul  in  these  words 
assumes  the  nearness  of  the  coming  of  the 
Lord  cannot  be  positively  asserted.  ...  It 
may  be  fairly  said  that  he  is  here  (ruii.  i:6), 
using  language  which  has  not  so  much  a  mere 
historical  as  a  general  and  practical  refer- 
ence; the  day  of  Christ,  whether  far  or  near, 
is  the  decisive  day  to  each  individual ;  it  is 
practically  coincident  with  the  day  of  his 
death,  and  becomes,  when  addressed  to  the 
individual,  an  exaltation  and  amplification  of 
that  term.  Death,  indeed,  as  has  been  well 
remarked  by  Bishop  Reynolds,  is  dwelt  upon 
but  little  in  the  New  Testament ;  it  is  to  the 
resurrection  and  to  the  day  of  Clirist  that  the 
eyes  of  the  believer  are  directed."  See  at  13: 
12  for  further  remarks  on  this  subject.] 

G.  Who  will  render  to  every  man  ac- 
cording to  his  deeds.  [The  same  words 
are  found  in  Prov.  24:  12.  The  compound 
verb  here  used  means,  to  give  in  full.']  Observe 
that  the  apostle  is  here  expounding  the  laiv, 
not  the  gospel.  Yet  it  is  equally  true,  under 
the  gospel,  that  God's  judgment  will  be  accord- 
ing to  each  man's  deeds,  though  the  saved  will 
not  be  saved  by  [or  on  the  ground  of]  their 


works.  (Matt.  16:  27;  25:  31-46;  2  Cor.  5 :  10 ;  Gal.  6;  7,8; 
Eph.6:  8;  Rev. 2:  23;  22:  12.)       The  righteOUS  wiU    be 

rewarded  according  to  their  works,  as  justified 
and  accepted  servants  of  the  Lord  ;  the  wicked 
will  be  punished  according  to  their  works,  as 
impenitent  transgressors  of  his  holy  law.  "It 
is  a  weak  inference,"  sa3's  Calvin,  "to  con- 
clude anything  to  be  merit,  because  it  is  re- 
warded." [De  Wette  says:  "Paul  speaks  here 
not  from  a  Christian  but  from  a  legal  stand- 
point." Similarly  Bengel,  Tholuck,  Hodge, 
and  others.  But  if  we  look  upon  this  rewarding 
of  believers  according  to  their  works  as  being 
a  reward  of  grace,  we  see  no  necessity  for  re- 
garding this  standard  of  God's  judgment  as 
determined  from  a  legal  standpoint.  "  In  the 
reward  there  is  a  certain  retrospect  to  the 
work  done,  but  no  proportion  between  them, 
except  such  as  may  have  been  established  by 
the  free  appointment  of  the  Giver,  and  the 
only  claim  which  it  justifies  is  upon  his  prom- 
ise." (Trench  on  "the  Parable  of  the  Labor- 
ers in  the  Vineyard.")  It  is  important  to 
notice  that  Paul  nowhere  says  we  are  saved 
and  rewarded  for  the  merit  of  our  works,  not 
even  propter  Jidein,  on  account  of,  or  on  the 
ground  of  our  faith.  "  Not  from  works  of 
righteousness  which  we  have  done,"  and  not 
"according  to  debt,"  are  we  saved  and  re- 
warded. Yet  God  is  pleased  graciously  to 
reward  the  works  of  believers,  works  which 
are  "the  practical  evidence  and  measure  of 
their  faith."  "But  this  equivalent,"  says 
Dr.  Weiss,  "  is  not  to  be  regarded  in  the  rigid 
judicial  sense  as  an  external  balancing  of 
wages  and  service.  ...  It  is  grace  which 
presents  the  reward  and  enables  one  to  attain 
it."  The  awards  to  the  righteous  and  the 
wicked  are  not  only  different,  but  are  given 
on  different  principles.  The  retributive  reward 
of  unbelievers  will  be  not  only  according  to 
their  works,  butbecause  of,  or  on  the  ground  of 
their  works.  It  will  be  an  award  of  debt,  of 
wages  due  to  sin.  To  the  righteous  the  award 
of  eternal  life  will  be  by  gift  of  grace,  yet 
according  to  their  works  of  righteousness. 
And  this  eternal  life  will  be  to  some  more  than 
it  will  be  to  others,  even  according  to  their 
works,  and  according  to  the  measure  of  their 


64 


EOMANS. 


[Ch.  II. 


7  To  them  who  by  patient  continuance  in  well  doing 
seek  for  glory  and  honour  and  immortality,  eternal 
life : 


doing  seek  for  glory  and  honour  and  incorruption, 
8  eternal  lile :  but  unto  them  that  are  factious,  and 


capacities.  If  any  think  it  selfish  and  mer- 
cenary for  believers  to  look  unto  the  future 
recompense  of  reward  we.  would  answer  in 
the  words  of  St.  Bernard:  "  True  love  is  not 
mercenary,  although  a  reward  follows  it." 
Dr.  Thomas  Playfere,  Professor  of  Divinity 
at  Cauibringe  (1600),  a  strong  Calvinist,  thus 
speaks  on  this  point :  "  If  ye  be  loving  chil- 
dren indeed,  though  there  were  no  hell  to 
fear,  no  heaven  to  hope  for,  no  torments  to 
dread,  no  rewards  to  expect,  yet  ye  will  obey 
your  good  Father  and  be  the  sorrowfullest 
creatures  in  the  world  if  you  have  but  once 
displeased  him,  only  for  the  mere  love  ye  bear 
towards  him,  and  for  the  unspeakable  love  he 
hath  showed  towards  you."J^ 

7.  [To  bring  out  the  full  force  of  the  Greek 
(the  fniv,  in  this  verse,  which  corresponds  with 
fie,  of  ver.  8),  we  may  render:  To  them, 
on  the  one  hand,  who,  etc.].  Patient  con- 
tinuance [or,  stedfastness,  as  in  the  margin 
of  the  Revised  Version]  is  expressed  in  the 
Greek  by  one  word,  translated  simply  "pa- 
tience" in  about  thirty  places,  "patient  wait- 
ing" in  2  Thess.  3:  5,  and  "enduring"  in  2 
Cor.  1 :  6.  It  differs  from  our  word  "patience," 
in  having  a  more  active,  energetic  sense,  which 
is  not  badly  paraphrased  here  by  the  expres- 
sion "ptitient  continuance,"  but  might  be  more 
briefly  rendered  by  the  single  word  "con- 
stancy," here  and  in  many  other  places. 
Here,  "constancy  in  good  works."  Compare 
Luke  8:  15.  It  is  only  another  form,  of  the 
same  radical  word,  which  is  translated  "to 
endure,"  in  the  expression,  "he  thatendureth 
to  the  end,"  in  Matt.  10:  22,  and  in  nearly  a 
dozen  other  places.  Seek  for  glory  and 
honour  and  immortality.  The  word  'glory' 
first  occurs  here  in  this  sense,  as  something 
■which  man  is  to  seek  as  his  chief  and  eternal 
good.  It  is  defined  by  Webster  ("Syntax  and 
Synonyms  of  the  New  Testament,"  p.  205)  as 
"the  future  state  of  acknowledged  perfection 


which  God  designs  for  man."  In  this  com- 
prehensive sense  it  seems  to  be  used  here,  and 
in  many  other  places  of  this  Epistle,  as  in  ver. 
10  of  this  chapter,  3:  23;  5:  2;  8:  18;  9:  23. 
These  three  terms  may  be  taken  as  a  compre- 
hensive description  of  the  future  salvation 
[two  of  these  elements  being  in  ver.  10,  ex- 
pressly' combined  in  the  "eternal  life"],  in 
these  three  aspects  or  elements  of  it,  the 
'  glory '  of  perfected  character  [compare  Matt. 
13:  43];  the   'honour'   connected  with  it,  as 

the  prize  of  victory  (l  Cor.  9:  25;  Phil.S:  14;  2  Tim.  4: 
8;  James  1:  12;  1  Peter  5 :  4),  til 6  reigning  with  Christ 

(8:  17;  2  Tim.  2 :  12);    and    its   impe7-ishableiiefis 

(1  Cor.  15;  52;  1  reter  1 :  4:  Rev.  21  :  4).  [This  'immor- 
tality,' or  'incorruption'  rather  (compare  2 
Tim.  1:  10;  also  1  Cor.  15:  42,  52,  53,  54), 
being  one  of  glory  and  blessedness,  is  not 
antithetical  to  annihilation  or  non-existence, 
Besides,  we  have  no  occasion  for  seeking  an 
endless  existence,  for  this  is  ours  as  an  in- 
alienable possession.  As  Halej'  in  his  "Dis- 
crepancies of  the  Bible"  remarks:  "The 
Greek  word  used  here  is  not  'immortality' 
(aOavaaia),  but  '  incorrujjtion  '  (a(j>iapaCa,  trans- 
lated 'sincerity'  in  Eph.  6:  24),  and  points  to 
that  exemption  from  moral  corruption  which 
saints  are  seeking  here  and  which  they  will 
fully  attain  in  heaven."  This  word  as  we 
suppose  denotes  not  being,  but  a  state  of  being, 
an  unending  state  of  glory  and  honor,  and 
implies,  of  course,  an  endless  existence.  Tiie 
adjective  from  it  is  applied  not  only  to  risen 
saints,  but  to  God,  in  Rom.  1  :  23 ;  1  Tim.  1 : 
17.]  The  seeking  here  implies  deliberate 
choice  and  active  e^ori.  Eternal  life.  This 
is  what  God  will  render  (ver. 6)  to  those  who 
earnestly  seek  it  by,  or,  in  'constancy  of  well 
doing.'  [The  epithet  "eternal,"  (olwnos), 
occurring  in  the  New  Testament  seventy-one 
times  according  to  Bruder,  is  applied  to  "life" 
forty-four  times.*  It  is  somewhat  singular  that 
the  Greek  'eternal'  should  be  derived  from 


I  So  sang  Francis  Xavier — 

"  0  deus,  ego  amo  Tc, 

Nee  amo  Te,  ut  saJves  me, 
Ant  quia  non  amantes  Te 
.^terno  punis  igne." 

My  God  I  love  thee— not  because 
I  hope  for  heaven  thereby, 


Nor  because  those  who  love  thee  not 
Must  burn  eternally. 
See  further  in  No.  3.33  of  the  Baptist  Hymnal.— fF.) 
2  Some  make  it,  mi.^takenly  we  think,  forty-six.    In 
lTim.6:  19,  Westcott  and  Hort  give  as  the  most  ap- 
proved text  ovTtoi  instead  of  aiwi'i'o?.     It  is  connected 
with  fire,  judgment,  destruction,  six  times;  with  glory 
three  times;  with  inheritance  twice;  and  once  each 


Ch.  II.] 


ROMANS. 


65 


8  But  unto  tbeiu  that  are  contentious,  and  do  not 
obey  llie  truth,  but  obey  uurighteousuess,  indiguatiou 
and  wrath, 


obey  not  the  truth,  but  obey  unrighteousness,  i-An/i 
9  be  wrath  and  iiidi^uatiun,  tribulation  and  anguish, 


a  word  meaning  "age"  {aia>v),  the  same  as 
the  Latin  'eternal'  from  aetas  (aeoutn,  aiuiv) 
age,  yet  botii  the  Greek  and  tiie  Latin  words 
(aiiunos  and  ceternus)  properly  signify  eternal, 
and  the  one  no  more  signifies  ag e-Lanting  ihan 
does  the  other.  It  is  only  when  this  word 
refers  to  "punishment"  and  "destruction" 
that  men  have  a  motive  to  give  a  qualitative 
character,  or  to  make  it  mean,  lasting  for  an 
age.  This  unending  life  (^utj)  is  something 
more  than  existence,  is  more  than  outward 
eurtlily  life  or  living  Ow)  :  it  is  life  in  the 
highest  sense,  "the  truly  life."  (i  Tim. 6.- is.) 
This  eternal  life  is  elsewhere  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament contrasted  with  judgment  (Joim5:24), 
with    corruption    (Gai.  6:  e),    with    perishing 

(John  3:  16;  10:    28),    with     death    (Rom.  6:   23),    with 

God's  abiding  wrath  (Joiin3: 36),  and  with  eter- 
nal punishment.  (Matt. 25:46.)  Compare '*  eter- 
nal destruction  "  in  '2  Thess.  1:9.  It  consists 
in  knowing  God  and  keeping  his  commands, 
in  knowing  his  Son,  believing  in  him,  and  re- 
ceiving him.  This  life  is  in  his  Son,  and  if 
we  have  him,  we  have  life.  We  have  the 
beginning  of  it  here  along  with  our  animal 
and  earthly  life,  and  it  abides  within  us,  and 

will   never  grow  old.      (John  6:  47,-  1  John  3:  15-)       It 

is  the  gift  of  God  to  his  adopted  children— their 
incorruptible,  unfading  inheritance.  Who 
are  we  or  what  liave  we  done  that  we  should 
be  heirs  of  such  an  inheritance?] 

8.  But  unto  them  that  are  conten- 
tious. The  word  translated  'contentious' 
means  rather,  "self-seeking":  instead  of 
being  derived,  as  our  translators  seem  to  have 
supposed,  from  the  word  commonly  trans- 
lated "strife,"  it  comes  rather  from  a  word 
which  means  "a  hired  laborer,"  and  suggests 
the  idea  of  a  mercenary  spirit.  The  persons 
to  whom  this  epithet  is  applied,  instead  of 
seeking  "glory,  honor,  and  immortalitj'," 
seek  their  own  sordid  ends.  [Such  persons 
generally  cause  factions,  intrigues,  and  the 
noun  is  taken  by  some  in  this  sense.  The 
literal  rendering  is  :  to  those  from  faction — 
that  is,  those  who  belong  to  it,  or,  as  Fritzsche 
says,   those   who    are  derived  from  it,    who 


"have  it  as  a  parent."  The  like  construction 
is  found  in  Acts  10:  45;  Gal.  3:  7,  those  from 
circumcision,  those  from  faith.  See  Winer, 
j^  51,  d.  Corresponding  with  this,  we  have 
elsewhere  the  phrase,  'sons  or  children  of  dis- 
obedience,'etc. ;  see  Eph.  2:  2.  The  word 
fur  faction  or  partisanship  occurs  elsewhere 
only  in  2  Cr.  12:  20;  Gal.  5:  20:  Phil.  1: 
16;  2:  3;  James  3:  14,  16;  see  Ellicott  on 
Gal.  5:  20.]  Aud  do  not  obey  the  truth. 
Gospel  truth  is  not  merely  to  be  believed,  but 
to  be  obeyed  :  it  is  very  practical,  and  a  mere 
intellectual  assent  to  it,  without  correspond- 
ing affections  and  actions,  is  of  no  value  in 
the  sight  of  God.  And  they  who  do  not  obey 
the  truth  will  be  sure  to  obey  unrighteous- 
ness. There  can  be  no  neutrality  here.  [The 
word  for  'obey  not'  denotes  that  tiiis  disobedi- 
ence springs  from  unbelief.  'Truth'  is  in 
the  dative  of  reference  or  of  the  mure  remote 
object;  they  were  disobedient  in  respect  to 
'the  truth.'  Tiie  word  translated  "truth" 
(oAi)9€ia)  by  its  etymology  denotes  that  wliich 
is  unconcealed,  manifest,  open,  hence  the 
converse  of  that  which  is  merely  apparent,  or 
false  and  hypocritical.  Truth  involves  right- 
eousness, and  is  opposed  to  'unrighteousness' 
(khiKia).  Hence  we  have  in  the  Scriptures  the 
rigiiteousness  of  truth,  and  the  deceit  of  un- 
righteousness. (Eph.  4:  24;  2  The9s.2:  10.)].  In- 
dignation and  wrath.  These  words,  so 
closely  allied  in  meaning,  are  cou]iled  together 
in  two  other  places  in  Paul's  epistles.  (Eph.  4. 
31;  Col,  3:  8.)  They  oftcu  occur  separately,  and 
both  are  commonly  translated  'wrath,'  but 
each  is 07?ce  translated  'indignation,'  one  here, 
and  the  other  in  Rev.  14:  10.  The  one  here 
translated  'wrath'  (6p>>))  seems  to  refer  more 
to  the  inward  feeling,  the  one  translated  'in- 
dignation' (flvMo«)  to  the  outward  manifesta- 
tion ;  one  is  the  heat  of  the  fire,  the  other  the 
bursting  forth  of  the  flame;  one  of  the  old 
Greek  grammarians  says,  that  the  first  is  last- 
ing, the  second  transitorj-.  Both  are  repeat- 
edly used  in  the  e.xpression,  "the  wrath  of 
God."  [In  the  revised  text  the  order  of  the 
two  nouns  is  reversed,  and  the  rendering  is 


with  gospel,  covenant,  things  unseen,  new  and  abiding 
relation  of  Onesiiuus,  Spirit,  God,  consolation,  home  in 
the  heavens,  Christ's  kingdom,  redemption,  salvation, 


purpose,  sin,  and  with  the  word  power  in  a  doxolgy 
(See  "  Bible  Commentary  "  on  2  Thessalonians,  p.  748.)— 
(F.) 


E 


66 


EOMANS. 


[Ch.  II. 


9  Tribulation  and  anguish,  upon  every  soul  of  man 
that  doeth  evil;  of  the  Jew  first,  and  also  of  the 
Gentile; 


upon  every  soul  of  man  that  worketh  evil,  of  the 
10  Jew  first,  and  also  ot  the  Greek;  but  glory  aud 


made  to  correspond.]  There  is  an  irregular- 
ity in  the  grammatical  construction  here. 
The  words  'indignation  and  wrath'  appear 
to  be  governed,  like  the  words  'eternal  life' 
in  the  preceding  verse,  by  the  verb  '  will  ren- 
der.' In  ver.  6  that  undoubtedly  expresses 
the  true  sense;  but  as  the  words  'indignation 
and  wrath'  are  in  the  nominative  case  in  the 
Greek,  it  is  necessary  to  supply  the  verb  in 
the  passive  form,  "indignation  and  wrath 
shall  be  rendered.^^  The  words  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  next  verse  are  also  in  the  nomi- 
native case,  and  so  equally  require  a  change 
in  the  verb.  [Perhaps  the  apostle  avoided 
saying;  God  will  render  anguish,  etc.,  in 
order  to  indicate  that  these  punishments  are 
not  altogether  direct  and  positive  inflictions 
from  the  hand  of  God,  but  that  they  may 
come  upon  the  sinner  in  accordance  with  the 
nature  and  laws  of  his  own  being,  or  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  "constitution  and  course  of 
nature."  Compare  9:  22,  and  Schaif' s  note 
in  Lange,  p.  98.  The  change  of  construction 
gives  at  least  variety  and  vivacity  to  the  style.] 

9.  Tribulation  and  anguish  (shall  be  or 
shall  come).  These  two  words  are  joined  to- 
gether again  in  8:  35,  and  2  Cor.  6:  4.  [See, 
also,  Isa.  8:  22;  30:  6;  LXX.]i  [Instead  of 
these  terms  we  might  have  expected  "eternal 
destruction"  (sxhess. i:  9)  as  the  correlative  of 
"eternal  life."  As  the  apostle  makes  the  re- 
ward of  the  righteous — glory,  honor,  and  life 
— to  be  eternal,  so,  if  we  keep  his  "eternal 
destruction"  in  view,  we  must  regard  this 
wrath  and  this  tribulation  as  likewise  eternal. 

At  least,  no  one  can  say  that  it  would  be 
un-Pauline  to  regard  these  as  eternal.  Some 
persons,  I  know,  are  trying  to  cherish  an 
"eternal  hope"  for  all  the  ungodly  who  are 
living  and  have  ever  lived  on  earth,  and  In- 
deed, for  all  the  rebel  host  throughout  crea- 
tion. They  trustingly  hope  that  there  will  be 
no  everlasting  sohism  in  God's  universe,  but 
that  as  all  began  in  unity,  and  harmony,  so 
all  will  end  in  harmony  and  peace.  A  most 
pleasing  anticipation  surely,  and  it  only  needs 
some  scriptural  foundation  to  warrant  it.    The 

1  The  latter,  as  the  stronger  terra,  is  always  put  last. 
The  former  (6Aii|/is)  is  pressure  from  wUhoul,\\\(i  latter 
(orei'oxwpia,  literally,  slraitness  of  room,  which  allows  uo 


great  trouble  which  lies  in  the  way  of  accept- 
ing restorationist  and  universalistic  views  is, 
that  if  we  shorten  or  do  away  with  the  "eter- 
nal punishment,"  we  must  shorten  or  do  away 
with  the  "eternal  life."]  Upon  every  soul 
of  man — that  is,  upon  every  single  man. 
The  'soul'  is  not  to  be  emphasized  here,  as 
if  it  were  intended  to  specif^'  that  part  of  our 
nature  as  the  sphere  of  the  'tribulation  and 
anguish  '  ;  but  the  expression  stands  for  the 
whole  man,  as  in  13:  1.  [Winer,  Meyer,  and 
others,  think  some  reference  is  had  to  tiie 
soul  as  that  part  of  man  which  feels  pain, 
thus  making  the  phrase  nearly  equivalent  to 
every  soul  of  man,  or,  soul  of  every  man. 
Mehring,  as  quoted  by  Philippi,  observes  that 
the  justification  of  the  jihrase  lies  in  the  fact 
that  the  soul,  as  the  sole  subject  of  feeling,  is 
the  real  man.  The  soul  is  the  vital  principle 
in  man,  "the  sphere  of  the  will  and  affections, 
and  the  true  centre  of  the  personality."  As 
distinguished  from  the  spirit,  it  has  special 
reference  to  our  animal  and  sensuous  nature. 
See  note  on  Luke  1 :  46,  47.]  That  doeth 
evil.  The  word  translated  'doeth'  here  is 
different  from  both  the  words  distinguished  in 
1:  32,  and  2:  1,  and  may  be  more  exactly 
translated  "worketh,"  as  it  is  in  the  following 
verse.  So  it  will  be  translated  wherever  we 
meet  it  throughout  the  Epistle.  [Its  meaning 
as  a  compound  is  probably  a  little  stronger 
than  the  simple  verb,  work.  Perhaps  it  is 
nearly  equivalent  to  our  work  out,  accom- 
plish, or  bring  to  pass.  'Evil,'  literally  "the 
evil;"  so,  "the  good,"  in  the  next  verse. 
The  neuter  adjective  with  the  article  is  thus 
often  used  as  an  abstract  noun.]  In  chapter 
7  we  shall  find  all  three  of  these  words,  "do, 
practice,  work,"  in  intimate  connection.  Of 
the  Jew  first,  and  also  of  the  Gentile. 
Inl:  16,  it  is  the  "blessing"  which  is  to  come 
to  the  Jew  'first'  ;  so  also  in  the  next  verse. 
Here  it  is  the  penal  retribution.  '  First'  does 
not  mean  "especially"  here;  for  although 
that  would  be  in  accordance  with  the 
just  rule  laid  down  by  our  Lord  in  Luke  12: 
47,  48,  it  would  not  agree  so  well  with  the 


way  of  turning  or  escaping)  is  pressure  from  ivithin. 
Compare  2  Cor.  4  :  8,  SAi^o/uei'oi,  pressed  on  every  side, 
but  not  dTivoxfpovtkivoi..-  (F.) 


Ch.  II.] 


EOMANS. 


67 


10  But  glory,  honour,  and  peace,  to  every  man  that 
worketli  good  ;  to  the  Jew  first,  and  al>o  to  theCientile: 

11  For  theie  is  no  respect  of  persons  with  God. 

12  For  as  many  as  have  sinned  without  law  shall  also 


honour  and  peace  to  every  man  that  worketh  good, 

11  to  the  Jew  first,  and  also  to  the  Greek:  tor  there 

12  is  no  respect  of  persons  with  God.     For  as  many 
as  1  have  sinned  without  law  shall  also  perish  with- 


frequent  use  of  the  expression  without  the 
word  'first.'  The  Jew  as  having  precedence 
in  privileges,  naturally  takes  precedence  in 
the  order  of  judgment.  He  is  always  named 
first,  except  in  Col.  3:  11.  Tiic  word  for 
'Gentile'  in  this  and  in  the  following  verse, 
is,  hy  the  Kevised  Version,  literally  rendered 
Greek. 

10.  But  glory,  honour,  and  peace  [will 
be  rendered].  Instead  of  "immortality" 
(incorruption)  here,  we  have  'peace,'  the 
other  two  words  being  the  same  as  in  ver.  7. 
These  are  what  God  "will  render"  (ver.e)  to 
these  two  classes  of  men  respectively.  In 
their  fullness,  they  will  be  realized  only  in 
the  future  world,  according  to  the  intimation 
in  ver.  16.  But  many  beginnings  and  fore- 
tastes of  them,  in  both  cases,  are  experienced 
in  the  present  life,  particularly  in  the  case  of 
the  threatened  evils.  Much  tribulation  and 
anguish  herald  the  coming  wrath ;  and  if  but 
little  of  the  glory  and  honor  appear  here 
(ijohn3:2),  the  peace,  at  least,  though  not 
perfect  nor  uninterrupted,  is  real,  and  beyond 
all  price. 

11.  For  there  is  no  respect  of  persons 
with  God.  [This  'respect  of  persons'  (Trpoo-u- 
iToXri^ia,  or,  in  some  critical  editions,  rrpoo-u- 
TTo\r)^^ia)  is  a  New  Testament  word,  yet  derived 
from  Old  Testament  phraseology.  See  Lev. 
19:  15;  Deut.  10:  17;  2  Chron.  19:  7;  Job  34: 
19;  Mai.  2:  9;  also  Luke  20:  21;  Matt.  22: 
16;  Acts  10:  34;  Gal.  2:  6.  It  occurs  else- 
where, in  Paul's  writings,  only  in  Eph.  6:9; 
Col.  3:  25.  Compare  James  2:  1  (9).  Similar 
phraseology  and  a  like  idea  are  found  in 
Ecclesiasticus,  or  Wisdom  of  Sirach  85:  12, 13. 
(LXX33  1  U16.)  Compare  Wisdom  of  Solomon 
6:  7.  Prof.  Shedd  remarks  that  there  "can 
be  no  partiality  in  the  exercise  of  mercy,  be- 
cause there  cannot  be  an  obligation  or  claim 
of  any  kind  in  this  case.  .  .  .  But  there  may 
be  partiality  in  the  administration  of  jua- 
tice.'"^  This  verse  states  the  principle  of  im- 
partiality on  which  God  will  deal  with  Jews 
and  Gentiles,  in  accordance  with  the  state- 
ments in  ver.  9  and  10,  and  in  opposition  to 
the  fond  fancy  of  the  Jews  that  they  had  as 


Jews,  irrespective  of  their  personal  charac- 
ters, a  sort  of  monopoly  of  the  divine  favor. 
The  doctrine  that  God  is  no  respecter  of  per- 
sons is  not  to  be  understood  in  such  a  way  as 
to  limit  his  sovereignty ;  he  dealeth  with  his 
creatures  according  to  his  good  pleasure,  giv- 
ing to  some  much  greater  favors  than  to 
others;  but  he  shows  no  capricious  partiality, 
always,  in  his  final  judgment,  holding  an 
even  balance  between  responsibilities  and 
privileges,  without  regard  to  merely  facti- 
tious distinctions.  So  it  is  that  the  succeed- 
ing context  teaches  us  to  understand  the  often 
misunderstood  and  often  abused  principle  so 
emphatically  affirmed  in  this  verse.  Com- 
pare Acts  10:  34,  35.  Men  are  justified  by 
faith,  not  by  works;  they  will  be  judged  ac- 
cording to  their  works,  without  any  partiality 
[judged  "according  to  truth,"  ver.  2.] 

12.  For  as  many  as  have  sinned.  [Liter- 
ally, sJHnccZ— "spoken  from  the  standpoint  of 
the  time  of  the  judgment."  (Meyer.)]  We 
have  now  an  expansion  and  illustration  of  the 
principle  laid  down  in  the  preceding  verse. 
God  is  impartial,  'for'  he  will  judge  nif^n 
according  to  the  light  which  they  enjoy  [or 
might  and  should  have  possessed].  Without 
law  here  can  only  mean  without  the  written 
law,  the  law  of  Moses.  If  any  were  abso- 
lutely without  law,  they  would  be  absolutely 
without  sin  ;  "  for  where  no  law  is,  there  is  no 
transgression."  (*:  is.)  The  expression  '  with- 
out law'  is  used  (adjectively)  in  the  same 
sense  in  1  Cor.  9:  21  (four  times).  The  word 
also  in  the  second  clause  shows  the  corre- 
sponding relation  between  the  verbs  '  have 
sinned'  and  shall  perish  [i.  e.,  they  shall 
'also  perish  without  law.'  "Their  punish- 
ment shall  be  assigned  without  reference  to 
the  written  law."  (Hodge.)]  This  perishing 
.s  the  opposite  of  "salvation"  (i:  is),  of  "shall 
live"  (I-  ")i  of  "eternal  life"  (2:  f),  of 
"glory,"  etc.  (2:10.)  Compare  John  3;  15; 
1  Cor.  1  :  18.  It  is  the  natural,  and  just,  and 
necessary  consequence  of  unpardoned  sin. 
[The  perishing  of  men  without  law,  signifies, 
according  to  Dr.  Hodge,  that  "their  punish- 
ment shall  be  assigned  without  reference  to 


68 


ROMANS; 


[Ch.  II. 


perish  without  law  ;  and  as  many  as  have  sinned  in  the 
law  shall  be  judged  by  the  law  ; 


out  law  :   and  as  many  as  have  sinned  under  law 
13  shall  be  judged  by  law  ;  for  not  the  hearers  of  the 


the  law."  The  apostle  in  his  writings  recog- 
nizes two  classes,  the  saved  and  the  perishing 
or  lost.  But  when  he  speaks  of  those  who 
"  are  perishing,"  as  in  1  Cor.  1 :  18;  2  Cor.  2: 
15:  4:  3;  2  Thess.  2:  10,  he  does  not  imply 
thattheirsouls  are  gradually  losingtheir  being 
and  sinking  into  non-existence.  Even  the 
"eternal  destruction"  of  2  Thess.  1  :  9  is 
not  annihilation,  but  is  rather  an  abiding 
alienation  from  God,  a  banishment  away  from 
the  presence  ot  the  Lord  and  from  the  glory 
of  his  power.  "Alienation  from  God,"  says 
Calvin,  "is  eternal  death."  Haley  says,  that 
the  "mortal  soulists"  or  annihilationists 
would,  from  their  favorite  proof  texts,  "prove 
too  much,  and  so  prove  nothing.  For  they 
would  prove  that  the  Messiah  was  annihilated 
at  his  crucifixion,  that  the  righteous  are  anni- 
hilated atdeath,  that  after  the  Israelites  had  an- 
nihilated themselves,  there  was  still  'help'  for 
them  with  all  manner  of  similar  absurdities." 
Does  our  Saviour  assert  that  a  prophet  could 
not  be  annihilated  except  at  Jerusalem?  Are 
we  to  infer  that  the  lost  coin  had  gone  out  of 
existence?  or  that  the  substance  of  the  per- 
ished wine  bottles  had  ceased  to  be?  After  the 
prodigal  had  returned,  could  the  father  truly 
say  that  he  had  been  annihilated  or  had  lost 
his  conscious  existence?  Is  found,  moreover, 
the  proper  correlative  of  "annihilated  "  ?  Our 
Saviour  says  that  he  came  to  seek  and  to  save, 
not  that  which  could  be  called  lost  by  way  of 
anticipation,  but  that  which  was  already  lost. 
A  sinner  can  become  lost  to  himself,  to  society, 
to  usefulness,  happine.is,  peace,  God,  and 
heaven,  and  still  retain  a  conscious  existence. 
These  are  for  him  a  sadder  loss  than  annihi- 
lation. Paul  assert^  the  fact  that  the  Gentiles 
sinned  against  the  light  of  nature  and  the  law 
written  in  their  hearts,  sinned  "without  ex- 
cuse," and  are  "  worthy  of  death."  Even  if 
favored  with  God's  revealed  will,  men  often 
choose  not  to  repent,  but  harden  their  hearts 
in  iniquity  and  heap  up  for  themselves  a 
treasure  of  wrsith  which  they  must  experience 
in  the  day  of  wrath.  Had  the  apostle  been  an 
advanced  thinker  of  the  more  liberal  school, 
this  of  course  would  have  been  the  proper 
place  for  him  to  hint  at  the  probability  of  a 
future  probation  for  the  heathen,  and  for 
others  who  do  not  have  a  fair  chance  in  this 


life  for  a  decisive  probation — the  probability 
or  certainty  that  before  any  man  shall  meet 
Christ  as  a  judge  (see.  ver.  16)  he  will  first 
have  heard  of  him  as  a  Saviour.  But  all  this 
he  has  strangely  neglected  to  do.  Meyer  sees 
no  mitigation  in  the  punishment  of  these  per- 
sons without  law — that  is.  Gentile  evil  doers, 
so  long  as  they  must  perish.  Our  passage  is 
indeed  an  echo  of  truth  :  "the  soul  that  sin- 
neth,  it  shall  die,"  but  surely  condemnation 
will  be  proportioned  to  light  resisted,  and 
perishing  may  be  to  one  more  than  it  is  to 
another.  The  teachings  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment on  the  subject  of  retribution  do  not 
shock  our  ideas  of  strictest  justice,  but  make 
responsibility  and  guilt  proportionate  to  light 
and  advantage,  and  plainly  reveal  the  fact  of 
diflerent  degrees  of  retributive  punishment. 

(Matt.  10:  15;  11:  21-24;  12:  41,  M  ;  Luke  12  :  47,48.)      "What 

can  be  more  consonant  with  our  ideas  of  right 
and  justice  than  our  Saviour's  teachings  in 
regard  to  the  manj^  stripes  and  the  few?  His 
rule  of  accountability  is  infinitely  better  than 
any  suppositions  of  ours  as  to  what  constitutes 
a  fair  probation.  Indeed,  an  exact  decision 
touching  this  point  lies  utterly  bej'ond  our 
power.  If  any  were  disposed  to  do  so,  they 
could  easily  construct  a  plausible  argument 
showing  that  none  of  us  have  a  "fair  chance" 
in  this  life  when  an  eternity  is  at  stake — 
placed  here,  as  it  were,  but  a  moment,  in  a 
world  of  darkness  and  temptation,  with  our 
almost  ungovernable  appetites  and  passions 
clamoring  ever  for  indulgence,  and  the  penal- 
ties of  future  retribution  so  far  out  of  our 
sight  and  beyond  the  possibility  of  adequate 
conception.  Reasoning  in  this  way,  we  can 
well  nigh  get  rid  of  every  rule  of  felt  duty 
and  every  measure  of  felt  responsibility,  and 
instead  of  a'.ting  as  though  a  fair  moral  pro- 
bation were  granted  to  any  of  us  we  should 
be  led  to  adopt  the  Epicurean  motto:  "  Let  us 
eat  and  drink,  for  to-morrow  we  die."  Cer- 
tainly, then,  a  "greater  condemnation,"  a 
"sorer  punishment"  will  be  theirs  who  sin 
under  the  law,  and  who  will  be  judged  bj'  the 
law  than  will  fall  to  those  who  sin  without  the 
law  and  will  perish  without  the  law.  Would 
it  not  be  best  then  to  withhold  light  and 
knowledge  from  the  comparatively  ignorant 
heathen  ?     Our  answer,  to  say  nothing  of  our 


Ch.  II.] 


ROMANS. 


69 


13  (For  not  the  hearers  of  the  law  are  just  before  |        law  are  ijiist  before  God,  but  the  doers  of  the  law 
God,  but  the  doers  of  the  law  shail  be  justilied.  |  14  shall  be  ■•! justified:  (for  wheu  Geutiles  who  have  uot 


1  Or,  riykte.ous 2  Or,  accounted  righteous. 


Saviours  command,  is  tliis,  that  tve  may  with- 
hold these  blessings  from  them  when  we  would 
have  our  ligiit  and  our  advantages  less  than 
they  are.  See  notes  on  3 :  2.]  Those  who  have 
sinned  in  the  law— that  is,  the  Jews  who 
have  tlie  law  of  Moses.  [In  the  verb  we  have 
the  Greek  historical  aorist:  'sinned.'  The 
word  'law'  is  here  without  the  article,  it 
being  to  the  Jew  nearly  equivalent  to  a  proper 
name  wliich  "does  not  require  the  article," 
though  as  the  established  sign  of  definiteness 
it  is  often  joined  to  sucli  names.  (Winer's 
"New  Testament  Grammar,"  p.  11'2.)  In 
this  Epistle  'law'  (»'omos),  occurs  thirty-four 
times  without  the  article  and  thirty-five  with 
it ;  in  Galatians,  twenty  times  without  it  and 
ten  times  with  it.]  Shall  be  judged  by  the 
law.  Thus  God's  judgment  of  both  Gentiles 
and  Jews  will  be  impartial,  according  to  the 
light  which  each  has  enjoyed.  [Philippi  re- 
marks that  the  "  Gentiles  as  sinners  perish, 
Jews  as  sinners  are  judged,"  and  by  this 
judgment,  which  is  here  equivalent  to  con- 
demnation, "perhaps  an  aggravation  of  pun- 
ishment is  indicated."  The  word  law  being 
in  the  last  two  instances  destitute  of  the  arti- 
cle, is  hence  regarded  by  some  as  not  referring 
to  "  the  law  "  of  Moses,  but  to  law  in  general. 
It  is  sometimes  rendered  a  law,  but  even  the 
Gentiles  sinned  against  a  law,  that  which 
was  written  in  their  hearts.  To  render  a 
Greek  noun  that  has  no  article  by  the  indefi- 
nite article  a  (see  Canterbury  Eevision)  is 
often  quite  as  misleading  as  to  render  it  by 
the  definite  article,  the.  The  word  law  often 
occurs  in  this  Epistle  without  the  article,  and 
evidently  denotes  in  general  the  revealed  law 
of  God,  the  law  of  Moses.  So  EUicott,  Alford, 
"VViner,  and  others.  Bishop  Lightfoot,  how- 
ever, says:  "The  written  law,  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, is  alwaj's  "the  law"  (6  fd/no?).  The 
same  word  "  without  the  article  is  law  con- 
sidered as  a  principle,  exemplified  no  doubt 
chiefly  and  signally  in  the  Mosaic  law,  but 
very  much  wider  than  this  in  its  application." 
Sf'o  Appendix  in  the  Introduction  of  "The 
Bible  Commentary,"  where  this  matter  is 
fully  discussed.] 

13.  [The  Common  Version  begins  a  paren- 
thesis with  this  verse;  the  American  Revised 


Version,  with  the  next  verse;  the  Canterbury 
Revision  omits  the  brackets  altogether.]  The 
for  at  the  beginning  of  this  verse  assigns  a 
reason  for  the  latter  half  of  ver.  12.  The 
Jews  have  the  written  law,  but  the  possession 
of  it  does  not  justify  them;  'for,'  etc.  The 
hearers  of  the  law  are  spoken  of,  rather 
than  the  readers  of  it,  because  in  those  an- 
cient times,  in  the  scarcity  of  books,  the  law 
became  known  to  the  people  chiefly  by  the 
public  hearing  of  it  in  the  synagogues,  rather 
than  by  the  private  reading  of  it  at  home. 
Compare  Acts  15:  21.  ["The  substantive 
(hearers)  brings  out  more  forcibly  than  the 
j)articipial  form  (those  hearing)  would  have 
done  the  characteristic  feature:  tiiose  whose 
business  is  hearing."  (Meyer.)  Critical  edi- 
tors omit  the  article  before  'law'  here,  and  in 
the  next  sentence,  wliile  the  governing  nouns 
in  both  places  have  the  article.  Compare  ver. 
27.  This  shows  that  in  the  use  of  the  article 
the  principle  of  "correlation"  referred  to  in 
ver.  6  does  not  always  hold.  Are  just  before 
God — accounted  righteous  in  his  sight  or 
presence;  "the  idea  of  locality  suggested  by 
the  preposition  being  still  retained  in  that  of 
judgment  at  a  tribunal."  (EUicott.)]  Shall 
be  justified.  This  verb  occurs  here  for  the 
first  time  in  this  Epistle.  Taken  in  connec- 
tion with  the  preceding  clause,  'are  just 
before  God,'  it  aff'ords  important  help  in 
explaining  the  sense  of  the  word  'righteous- 
ness.' See  notes  on  1:  17.  To  'be  justified' 
is  to  be  exempt  from  condemnation,  and  ac- 
quitted in  the  divine  judgment,  so  as  to  stand 
in  favor  with  God  and  to  enjoy  the  security 
and  the  blessings  resulting  from  that  favor. 
[With  the  last  part  of  this  verse  compare  10: 
5;  Deut.  27:  26;  Lev.  18:  5.  'Justified,'  as 
Dr.  Giflford  remarks,  cannot  here  mean  par- 
doned, since  the  doer  of  the  law  has  nothing 
to  be  pardoned  for;  nor  can  it  mean  made 
just,  for  he  is  just  already  by  the  supposition. 
It  is  the  exact  contrary  to  being  "con- 
demned." As  no  one  can  be  justified  by 
doing  the  law,  Prof.  Turner  would  give  to 
this  justified  the  meaning  of  accepted.  But 
these  two  ideas  virtually  impl^'  each  other, 
and  the  Greek  language  has  specific  terms  to 
express  the  idea  of  acceptance.     "  There  is  no 


70 


ROMANS. 


[Cn.  II. 


14  For  when  tUe  Geatiles,  which  have  not  the  law, 
do  by  nature  the.  things  contained  in  the  law,  these, 
having  not  the  law,  are  a  law  unto  themselves: 


the  law  do  by  nature  the  things  of  the  law,  these,  not 
15  having  the  law,  are  a  law  unto  themselves  ;  in  tnat 


conflict  here  with  the  doctrine  of  justification 
by  faith.  The  apostle  cites  an  axiom  in 
ethics — namely,  that  perfect  personal  obedi- 
ence will  be  recognized  and  rewarded  by  tliat 
impartial  Judge  wlio  is  no  respecter  of  per- 
sons, and  tliat  nothing  short  of  this  will  be. 
That  any  man  will  actually  appear  before 
this  tribunal  with  such  an  obedience  is  neither 
affirmed  nor  denied  in  the  mere  statement  of 
the  principle.  The  solution  of  this  question 
must  be  sought  elsewhere  in  the  Epistle." 
(Shedd.)] 

14.  For  when  the  Gentiles.  Here  the 
'for'  assigns  a  reason  for  tlie  latter  part  of 
ver.  13.  [Phiiippi  and  Godet  make  the  'for' 
substantiate  the  first  part  of  ver.  13,  and  sup- 
pose that  Paul,  as  a  proof  that  mere  hearers 
of  the  law  are  not  justified,  adduces  the  fact 
that  unbelieving  Gentiles  are  hearers  of  a  law. 
This  sense  is  appropriate  enough,  but  I  do 
not  see  how  it  can  be  derived  from  the  text. 
It  certainly  requires  no  such  supposition  as 
that  made  by  the  apostle:  when  Gentiles  c?o 
by  nature  the  things  of  the  law.]  It  would 
be  better  to  omit  the  definite  article  before  the 
word  'Gentiles.'  It  is  not  expressed  in  the 
original,  and  the  indefinite  character  of  the 
supposition  is  better  expressed  without  it: 
'  When  any  Gentiles,  if  any  ever  do,  for  they 
as  a  class  certainly  do  not,'  etc.  [So  Fritz- 
sche,  Meyer,  and  others.  But  De  Wette  and 
Phiiippi  think  the  word  is  sufficiently  definite 
in  itself  and  may,  without  the  article,  be 
referred  to  the  entire  Gentile  world.  See 
3:  29;  11:  13;  15:  10,  12;  1  Cor.  1 :  23.  A 
noun  also  may  dispense  with  the  article  when 
joined,  as  here  and  in  9 :  30,  by  an  article  to  a 
limiting  attributive.  (Winer,  p.  139;  Butt- 
mann,  92.]  Do  by  nature— that  is,  by  natu- 
ral instinct,  judgment,  and  reason  ["the 
moral  prompting  of  conscience  left  to  itself." 
(Meyer)],  without  any  such  formal  standard 
of  duty  as  the  Jews  have;  corresponding  to 
'without  law'  in  the  preceding  verse.  The 
things  contained  in  the  law — that  is,  the 
things  which  the  law  prescribes ;  when  they 
do  the  things  commanded,  without  a  definite 
kr.owledge  of  the  commandment.  [These 
having  not  the  law.  The  pronoun  'these,' 
though  referring  to  a  neuter  noun,  Gentiles, 


is  by  a  constructio  ad  sensimi  put  in  the  mas- 
culine; the  word  'law,'  though  without  the 
article  in  the  Greek,  evidently  refers  to  the 
revealed  will  of  God.  The  2^ossessio7i  of  this 
law  is  here  emphatically  denied.  In  the 
former  clause,  'having  not  the  law,'  the  em- 
phasis rests  tnore  upon  the  substantive— thnt 
is,  the  possession  of  the  law  is  denied.  By  the 
use  of  the  subjective  negative  (m^),  the  ab- 
sence of  law  on  the  part  of  the  Gentiles  is 
represented  as  a  supposition,  as  something 
existing  .not  so  much  in  fact  as  in  thought.] 
Are  a  law  unto  themselves.  This  expres- 
sion is  sufficiently  explained  by  the  following 
verse.  [Since  'a  law'  may  be  just  or  unjust, 
God's  law  or  man's  law,  Alford  would  make 
even  this  'law'  definite,  thus:  'are  (so  far) 
the  law  to  themselves.'  The  connection  and 
thought  of  this  verse  are  quite  variously  ex- 
plained. The  apostle  affirms  that  the  Gen- 
tiles have,  as  Farrar  states  it,  "a  natural  law 
written  on  their  hearts,  and  sufficiently  clear 
to  secure,  at  the  Day  of  Judgment,  their  ac- 
quittal or  condemnation,"  and,  what  is  some- 
what surprising,  he  even  supposes  that  they 
or  some  of  them  do  by  nature  perform  the 
things  of  the  (written)  law,  and  in  ver.  26,  27, 
he  goes  so  far  as  to  say:  "If  the  uncircum- 
cision  (the  Gentiles)  keep  the  ordinances  of 
the  law,"  and  "if  thoy  fulfil  the  law."  Now 
they  have  not  the  written  law,  and  the  apos- 
tle is  far  from  supposing  that  they  perfornt 
all  the  "  works  of  the  law,"  but  he  does  seem 
to  imply  that  some  of  them  do  perform  ce?-- 
tain  thitigs  of  the  law — that  is,  avoid  murder, 
adultery,  etc. ;  and  he  brings  forward  this 
fact  here,  though  in  a  delicate  and  somewhat 
secret  way,  as  being  condemnatory  ("shall 
judge  thee,"  ver.  27)  of  those  persons,  the 
Jews,  "who  with  the  letter  (of  the  law)  and 
circumcision  are  yet  transgressors  of  the  law." 
Meyer's  view  of  this  verse  is  that  "Paul  de- 
sires simply  to  establish  the  regulative  prbi- 
ciple  of  justification  through  law  in  the  case 
of  the  Gentiles."  Prof.  Stuart  says  "that 
the  apostle  is  only  laying  down  or  illustrating 
a  principle  here,  not  relating  a  historical  fact. 
.  .  .  The  writer  means  to  say  neither  more 
nor  less,  than  that  the  Gentiles  may  have  the 
same  kind  of  claims  to  be  actually  justified 


Ch.  IL] 


ROMANS. 


71 


15  Which  *ew  the  work  of  the  law  written  in  their  | 
hearts,  their  conscience  also  bearing  witness,  and  their 


they   shew  the  work  of  the  law  written  in  their 
hearts,  their  conscience  bearing  witness  therewith, 


before  God  as  the  Jews;  but,  as  the  sequel 
shows  most  fully,  neither  Jew  nor  Gentile 
has  any  claim  at  all  to  justification,  since  both 
have  violated  the  law  under  which  they  have 
lived."  "  It  is  remarkable,"  says  Dr.  Gifford, 
"that  St.  Paul  here  uses  the  exact  words  of 
Aristotle,  who  says,  concerning  men  of  emi- 
nent virtue  and  wisdom  :  'Against  such  there 
is  no  law,  for  themselves  are  a  law.'  "  The  first 
clause  is  found  in  Gal.  5:  2:1] 

15.  We  have  at  the  beginning  of  this  verse 
the  same  compound  relative  spoken  of  in  1:  2o, 
with  the  force  of  a  reason.  Which  shew— 
"since  they  are  such  as  sliow."  [They  'shew' 
openly,  by  their  action— doing  the  things  of 
the  law.  (Ver.  14,  so  De  Wette,  Meyer,  Phil- 
ippi,  etc.)  Others;  by  the  testimony  of  their 
conscience.]  The  work  of  the  law.  They 
show  the  operation  of  the  law;  they  show 
that  what  tlie  law  does  is  done  in  them  ;  the 
law  distinguishes  between  what  is  right  and 
what  is  wrong  [it  commands  and  forbids] ; 
this  work  is  shown  to  be  done  in  them.  How 
it  is  done  is  immediately  explained.  Written 
in  their  hearts.  They  have  a  moral  nature 
(vpr.  14),  which  necessitates  the  recognition  of 
right  and  wrong  in  actions.  [This  injunctive 
and  interdicting  work  of  the  law  written  in 
men's  hearts  is  generally  spoken  of  as  the  un- 
written law  of  God,  but  is  here  named  written, 
in  allusion  to  the  law  which  was  written  on 
tablets  of  stone.  For  a  like  figure,  see  2  Cor. 
3:3.  Philippi  says:  "The  works  of  the  law 
are  written  in  their  hearts  in  so  far  as  they 
confess  in  their  hearts  an  obligation  to  do 
thein."  Paul  "obviously  means  by  this  term 
the  voice  of  God  in  the  conscience"  (Olshau- 
sen),  and  for  this  reason,  perhaps,  a  change  is 
made  from  the  plural  (hearts)  to  the  singular 
(conscience).  Prof  Boiso  calls  attention  to 
the  frequent  use  in  the  New  Testament  of  the 
verbal  adjective  (here  ypa.nTov,  ivritten)  instead 
of  the  aorist  or   perfect  passive  participle.] 


1  On  the  force  of  this  participle,  Alford,  similarly  to 
De  Wette,  thus  remarks :  "  Confirming  by  its  testimony, 
the  auv  signifying  the  agreement  of  tlie  witness  with 
the  deed  [i.  e.,  with  their  doinrj  the  things  of  the  law], 
perhaps,  also,  the  a-vv  may  be  partly  induced  by  the  <rvv 
in  auKftSjitrew?,  conscience,  referring  to  the  reflective 
process  in  whicli  a  man  confers,  so  to  speak,  with  him- 


Their  conscience  also  bearing  witness. 

The  force  of  the  word  'also'  here  is  not  very 
apparent.  It  is  an  attempt  to  express  in  Eng- 
lish what  is  expressed  in  Greek  by  a  preposi- 
tion [crvv,  ivith]  combined  with  the  participle 
"  bearing  witness,"  giving  it  the  force  of  "co- 
witnessing,"  and  so  seeming  to  imply  some 
other  testimony,  with  which  that  of  conscience 
is  co-ordinate  and  concurrent.  What  is  that 
other  testimony  ?  The  testimony  of  the  actual 
fact,  says  Meyer— that  is,  the  work  of  the  law 
is  shown  to  be  written  in  their  hearts  by  their 
actually  doing  the  things  contained  in  the 
law  (ver.  u) ;  and  then  the  testimony  of  their 
conscience  'also'  confirms  the  same  fact,  by 
the  accusing  or  excusing  verdict  which  they 
pass  upon  the  actions  of  themselves  and  one 
another.  This  is  very  intelligible;  and  if  it 
were  certain  (as  Meyer  affirms)  that  this  pre- 
fix syllable  requires  some  such  definite  witness 
to  be  predicated,  apart  from  that  of  conscience, 
no  better  explanation  need  be  sought.  But  is 
it  so  certain  that  this  prefix  to  the  participle 
requires  us  to  seek  some  other  definite  witness 
than  that  of  conscience?  The  simple  verb 
"to  witness,"  in  Greek,  is  never  used  in  con- 
nection with  the  word  conscience.  The  only 
other  place  where  the  two  occur  together  in 
the  New  Testament  is  9:  1,  and  there,  as  here, 
the  participle  has  the  prefix  preposition.  In- 
deed, the  same  prefix  (o-iii')  is  also  the  first 
syllable  of  the  Greek  word  for  "conscience." 
And  the  corresponding  syllable,  con,  begins 
the  class  of  words,  both  in  Latin  and  English, 
that  express  this  inward  witness  of  our  nature, 
as  "  co?iscience,  cojisciousncss."  Is  there  not 
in  these  agreeing  compounds,  in  different  lan- 
guages, an  intimation  that  this  common  syl- 
lable expresses  only  the  tmion  and  harmony 
of  all  the  faculties  of  our  deeper  and  better 
nature  in  this  inward  witness?  If  this  is  the 
true  explanation,  the  word  also  should  be 
omitted,  both  here  and  in  9  : 1.^    And  their 


self."  Volkraar,  as  quoted  by  Godet,  says:  "Their 
conscience  bears  testimony  besides  the  moral  act  itself, 
which  already  demonstrated  the  presence  of  the  divine 
law."  Philippi  supposes  that  what  their  (reflective) 
conscience  bears  witness  to  is,  that  the  work  of  tlie  law 
is  written  on  their  hearts,  though  he  confesses  that  the 
conscience  antecedens  is  this  law  in  the  heart.— (F.) 


72 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  II. 


thoughts  the  oiean  while  accusing  or  else  excusing  one 
another;) 

16  In  the  day  when  God  shall  judge  the  secrets  of 
men  by  Jesus  Christ  according  to  my  gospel. 


and  'their  2  thoughts  one  with  another  accusing  or 
16  else  excusing  ttiem;)   in  the  day  when  Ciod   i*shall 
judge  the  secrets  of  men,  according  to  my  gospel,  by 
Jesus  Christ. 


1  Or,  their  thoughts  accusing  or  else  excusing  tbcm  one  with  another 2  Or, 


ngs 3  OT,judgeth. 


thoughts  the  mean  while  accusing  or 
else  excusing  one  another.  The  single 
word  translated  'in  the  mean  while,'  is  usu- 
ally translated  "between,"  and  is  closely  con- 
nected with  the  word  translated  '  one  another.' 
This  seems  the  true  connection  from  the  posi- 
tion of  the  words  [see  Matt.  18:  15j,  although 
the  'one  another'  might  be  regularly  enough 
governed  by  the  participles  'accusing  and 
excusing.'  The  word  which  we  translate 
"between"  (/utTofu)  seems,  however,  to  require 
an  object  more  than  the  participles  do.  It  is 
invariably  followed  by  an  object  which  it  gov- 
erns (seven  times),  except  when  it  is  used  as 
a  noun,  John  4  :  31  (meanwhile),  or  as  an 
adjective,  Acts  13  :  42  (next).  According  to 
this  view  of  the  connection,  the  last  part  of 
this  verse  might  better  be  translated — and 
their  thoughts  between  (or  among)  one  another 
accusing,  or  even  excusing.  [Meyer  and  Lange 
regard  the  one  another  as  referring  not  to 
thoughts  but  to  the  Gentiles — i.  e.,  their 
thoughts  are  busy  in  approving  or  condemn- 
ing the  actions  of  their  fellow-men.  It  seems 
most  natural  to  regard  the  reciprocal  pronoun 
here  as  reflexive,  referring  to  thoughts  or 
judgments — the  judging  and  the  strife  being 
internal — while  the  participles  may  be  taken 
as  used  absolutely,  without  any  object  ex- 
pressed. A  passage  parallel  to  this  is  found 
in  Philo:  "That  conviction  which  is  the  in- 
nate inhabitant  of  every  soul,  like  an  accuser, 
censures,  charges,  and  upbraids;  and  again, 
as  a  judge,  teaches,  admonishes,  and  exhorts 
to  repentance."  "This  judical  process,"  says 
Dr.  Schaff,  "  which  takes  place  here  in  every 
man's  heart,  is  a  forerunner  of  the  great  judg- 
ment at  the  end  of  the  world."  Did  we  but 
realize  the  terrible  power  of  a  thoroughly 


enlightened  and  awakened  conscience,  con- 
joined with  a  restored  and  perfect  memory, 
each  one  would  be  moved  to  say : 

That  to  sit  alone  with  luy  conscience 
Will  be  judgment  enough  for  me.  i] 

The  word  translated  'else'  would  be  more 
exactly  translated  even;  it  seems  designed  to 
intimate,  what  is  undoubtedly  true  in  the  case 
of  the  persons  referred  to,  that  the  thoughts 
have  more  frequent  occasion  to  accuse  than  to 
excuse;  that  the  former  is  tlie  7-ule,  the  latter 
the  exception. 

16.  [In  the  day.  The  word 'day '  is  with- 
out the  article,  yet  is  virtually  defined  by  the 
clause  which  follows.  Westcott  and  Hort, 
however,  prefix  the  relative  pronoun:  in  what 
day.  We  notice  also  that  they  prefer  the 
present  tense  of  the  verb,  judge.  Where  va- 
rious readings  occur,  these  critics,  as  in  the 
case  before  us,  frequently  adopt  the  marginal 
reading  of  the  Kevised  Version,  and  make 
the  Kevisers'  text  their  secondary  reading.] 
Almost  all  commentators  perceive  a  necessity 
for  inclosing  the  two  or  three  preceding  verses 
in  parentheses.  For  the  accusing  and  ex- 
cusing office  of  conscience  does  not  date  from 
the  Day  of  Judgment,  however  it  may  be 
intensified  then.  But  there  is  a  difl^erence  of 
opinion  as  to  the  extent  of  the  parenthetic 
portion,  some  including  three  verses  (i^-is), 
and  others  only  two  (»,  is).  The  former  view 
seems  preferable,  for  this  ver.  16  does  not  con- 
nect immediately  with  ver.  13  so  appropriately 
as  with  ver.  12.  The  statement  in  ver.  13 
seems  much  too  limited,  while  that  of  ver.  12 
is  much  more  comprehensive.  [Some,  as 
Lachmann  and  Meyer,  inclosing  ver.  14,  15, 
in  parentheses,  erroneously  connect  this  judg- 


1  The  terrible  state  of  a  remorseful  conscience  is  well 
depicted  in  the  lines  from  Byron's  "  Giaour"  : 

The  mind  that  broods  o'er  guilty  woes 

Is  like  the  scorpion  girt  by  fire. 

So  writhes  the  mind  Remorse  hath  riven, 

Unfit  for  earth,  undoomed  for  heaven, 

Darkness  above,  despair  beneath. 

Around  it  flame,  within  it  death. 
And  in  the  tragedy  of  "Manfred,"  the  same  poet  says 
that  not  even 


The  innate  tortures  of  that  deep  despair 

Which  is  remorse  without  the  fear  of  hell, 

But  all  in  all  sufficient  in  itself, 

Would  make  a  hell  of  heaven — can  exorcise 

From  out  the  unbounded  soul  the  quick  sense 

Of  its  own  sins,  wrongs,  sufferance,  and  reveng 

Upon  itself;  there  is  no  further  pang 

Can  deal  that  justice  on  the  self-condemned 

He  deals  on  his  own  soul. — (F.) 


Ch.  II.] 


ROMANS. 


73 


17  Behold,  thou  art  called  a  Jew,  and  restest  in  the 
aw,  aiid  luakest  ihy  boast  of  God, 


17      But  if  thou  bearest  the  name  of  a  Jew,  and  restest 


inent  day  with  the  'shall  be  justified'  of  ver. 
13.  But  no  doers  of  the  hiw  will  as  such  'be 
justified'  on  that  day.  "VViner  says  rightly, 
as  we  think,  that  shall  judge  glances  back  at 
'shall  be  judged,'  of  ver.  12.  So  De  Wette 
and  otiiers.  Alford  goes  back  to  the  passage 
ending  with  ver.  10.  Hofniann  and  Lange 
make  this  judging,  accusing,  or  excusing  day 
to  be  whenever  Paul's  gospel  was  preached  to 
them,  and  translate,  "when  God  judges," 
etc.,  not  'shall  judge.'  But  Meyer  says: 
"The  expressions  in  ver.  16  are  so  entirely 
those  formally  used  to  denote  the  last  judg- 
ment .  .  .  that  nothing  else  could  occur  to 
any  reader  than  the  concei)tion  of  that  judg- 
ment, which,  moreover,  has  been  i)resenttothe 
mind  since  ver.  2,  and  from  which  even  'ac- 
cording to  my  gospel'  does  not  draw  away 
the  attention."  Philippi  connects  this  verse 
with  the  preceding,  and  thus  explains  the  con- 
nection. The  witness  of  conscience,  spoken 
of  in  ver.  15,  referred  to  moral  conduct  in  the 
present  life.  But  as  the  apostle  was  describ- 
ing it,  the  thought  was  borne  vividly  in  upon 
his  mind  in  the  way  indicated,  how  this  would 
manifest  itself  most  decisively  in  the  general 
judgment.  On  this  account  he  passes  on  to 
the  latter  without  so  much  as  indicating  the 
change  in  the  course  of  thought  by  varying 
the  phraseology,  as  by:  and  this  esvecialty.] 
The  secrets  of  men.  The  secret  actions, 
thoughts,  designs,  and  motives.  (Ecwies.  i-^:  u.) 
Not  (.inly  things  concealed  from  others,  but 
things  only  partially  known  to  ourselves,  will 
God  bring  into  judgment.  Compare  1  Cor. 
4:  4,  5.  [How  fearful  must  this  judgment  be 
to  any  man,  however  outwardly  moral,  if  all 
the  hidden  deeps  of  life  and  all  the  secret 
purposes  and  desires  of  his  heart  shall  be  thus 
brought  to  light,  especially  if  this  judging 
shall  be  attended  with  exposure.  Men  in  this 
world  generall3'  dread  exposure  of  their 
crimes  far  more  than  they  do  the  crimes  thein- 
selves,  and  the  avoidance  of  this  exposure  is  a 
frequent  cause  of  suicide.  But  there  will  be 
no  such  escape  in  the  world  to  come.]  By 
Jesus  Christ.  [These  words  point  decisively 
to  the  final  judgment.]  That  Jesus  Christ  is 
the  appointed  Judge  of  men  is  very  plainly, 
repeatedly,  and  emphatically  affirmed  in  the 
Scriptures.     See  Matt.  25:  31-46;  John  5:  22, 


27;  Acts  10:  42;  17:31;  1  Cor.  4:5;  2  Cor.  5: 
10.  According  to  my  gospel.  The  refer- 
ence ('my  gospel')  is  not  specifically  to  the 
Gospel  of  Luke,  as  was  supposed  by  several  of 
the  ancient  Fathers  [Origen,  Eusebius,  Je- 
rome], an  early  tradition  having  represented 
this  gospel  as  written  under  Paul's  supervis- 
ion, and  especially  sanctioned  by  his  ap- 
proval ;  but  rather  the  gospel  which  he 
preached,  in  common  with  the  other  apostles. 
He  uses  a  similar  expression  in  16:  25;  2  Tim. 
2:8.  Compare  also  1  Cor.  15:  1.  [Ho  who 
was  "separated  unto  the  gospel  of  God"  and 
who  speaks  in  1  Tim.  1:  11  of  the  "gospel 
which  was  committed  to  my  trust,  '  could 
well  say,  'my  gospel.'] 

The  doctrine  of  a  future  judgment  is  an 
important  part  of  the  gospel,  and  as  such  is  to 
be  preached  faithfully, solemnly, and  tenderly. 
It  is,  moreover,  a  reasonable  ground  for  en- 
forcing the  duty  of  repentance,  and  is  so  rep- 
resented by  this  same  apostle  in  Acts  17  :  31, 
and  perhaps  also  in  2  Cor.  5:11,  though  the 
sense  of  the  expression  in  this  last  passage — 
"the  terror  of  the  Lord" — admits  a  difi'ereiit 
interpretation.  ["Thus  in  ver.  14-16,  St. 
Paul  shows  that  the  principle  stated  in  ver. 
13  is  a  fact  universal,  and  that  the  formal 
distinction  between  Gentile  and  Jew,  ver.  12, 
does  not  involve  any  essential  difference  be- 
tween them  in  reference  to  the  divine  judg- 
ment." (Gifford.)  Noone,  methinks,  can  fail 
to  perceive  how  irrefutably  antagonistic  all 
this  teaching  of  the  apostle  is  to  the  notion  of 
a  future  probation  for  "some  heathen.  '] 

17-30.  The  apostle  having  made  his  grad- 
ual and  cautious  approach  to  the  Jew,  as  the 
hawk,  after  wheeling  awhile  above  his  victim, 
suddenly  pounces  down  upon  him,  now  singles 
him  out  by  name.  These  four  verses  are  too 
closely  connected  in  one  description  to  be  sepa- 
rated without  disadvantage.  The  word  trans- 
lated behold  is,  in  the  best  manuscripts  and  in 
most  critical  editions,  divided  into  two  words 
(ei  5f),  which  would  be  translated  "but  if,"  or 
"if  now":  the  hypothetical  sentences  thus 
introduced  extend  through  these  four  verses. 
Thou  art  called  a  Jew.  ["Thou  hast  a 
title  (Jew)  in  addition  to  (en-O  that  which 
other  men  possess."  ("Wordsworth.)  De 
Wette  and  Meyer  regard  the  verb  as  simply 


74 


EOMANS. 


[Ch.  II. 


18  And  knowest  his  will,  and  approvest  the  tilings 
that  are  more  excellent,  being  instructed  out  of  the 
law ; 


18  upon  1  the  law,  and  gloriest  in  God,  and  knowest 
2  his  will,  and  ^approvesl  the  things  that  are  excel- 

19  lent,  being  instructed  out  of  the  law,  and  art  couti- 


1  Or,  a  law 2  Or,  the  Will...  ..3  Or,  dost  distingtiish  the  things  that  differ. 


meuning  "named."  See  Gen.  4:17,  25,  26; 
LXX.  The  word  Jew,  etymologically,  means 
praised,  from  Judah,  the  tribe  in  which  the 
national  and  theocratic  hopes  of  the  Hebrews 
were  centred.  The  virtue  attached  to  this 
name  may  be  seen  from  Gal.  2  :  14,  15 ;  Rev.  2 : 
9.  Meyer  says:  "  The  'but'  (««)  and  the  em- 
phatic 'thou'  are  to  be  exphiined  from  the 
conception  of  the  contrast,  which  the  conduct 
of  the  Jews  showed,  to  the  proposition  that 
only  the  doers  of  the  law  shall  be  justified."] 
To  bear  the  name  of  Jew  was,  in  their  estima- 
tion, a  great  honor.  The  following  clauses 
explain,  in  great  part,  why  it  was  so.  And 
restest  in  the  law  [or,  tcpoti  laiv].  The 
Jew  rested  in  the  law  in  a  twofold  sense:  his 
mind  rested  in  it  as  a  sure  and  ultimate  rule 
of  righteousness,  in  contrast  with  the  uncer- 
tain and  conflicting  speculations  of  heathen 
philosophers  and  moralists ;  and  hishope  relied 
upon  it  [or  upon  his  possession  and  knowledge 
of  it]  as  the  ground  of  his  acceptance  with 
God.  In  the  former  view  he  was  right:  in 
the  latter  he  was  wrong.  And  makest  thy 
boast  of  God.  Literally,  '  honstest  in  God.'^ 
[It  will  be  noticed  that  all  the  particulars  here 
enumerated,  in  which  the  Jew  prided  himself, 
are  in  themselves  right  and  good.  It  was  well 
to  bear  the  name  of  a  Jew,  to  rest  upon  the 
law,  to  glory  in  God,  to  know  his  will,  etc.] 
"While  all  other  nations  worshiped  them  that 
"by  nature  are  no  gods"  (Gal.  4:8),  the  Jew 
prided  himself  on  having  the  knowledge  of 
the  one  true  God.  And  knowest  his  Avill. 
Thepronoun  'bis'  is  not  distinctly  expressed, 
and  knowest  the  loill  is  the  literal  translation 
[the  article  being  sometimes  used  as  virtually 
equivalent  to  the  pronoun].  The  omission  of 
the  pronoun  causes  no  obscurity,  but  may 
rather  be  regarded  as  adding  force,  inasmuch 
as  it  assumes  that  all  doubt  as  to  whose  will  is 
meant  is  precluded  by  the  nature  of  the  case. 
And  approvest  the  things  that  are  more 
excellent.  This  expression  might  be  trans- 
lated >aw(Z^Hesi[distinguishest,  or,  as  margin, 


by  American  Revisers,  "dost  distinguish"] 
the  things  that  differ  [with  special  reference 
to  discriminating  between  right  and  wrong, 
truth  and  error],  without  doing  any  violence 
to  either  the  verb  or  the  participle  (diflering 
or  excelling).  [The  Revised  Version  (Eng- 
lish Revisers)  has  jo?'oyeA'^  the  things  that  differ 
in  the  margin,  and  a  similar  interpretation  is 
adopted  by  De  Wette,  Philippi,  Godet,  Al- 
ford,  Stuart,  Shedd.]  But  the  common  trans- 
lation [favored  by  Meyer,  Jowett,  Gifford, 
Turner,  Noyes,  Hodge,  Boise]  seems  more 
suitable  to  the  context,  both  here  and  in  Phil. 
1 :  10,  where  the  same  expression  occurs,  and 
agrees  better  with  the  ordinary  uses  of  both 
the  verb  from  which  the  participle  is  derived 
{5i.a(\>ipiiv  \  see  Matt.  6:  20,  "are  better";  10: 
31,  "are  of  more  value"  ;  12:  12,  "is  better"), 
and  of  the  corresponding  adjective  (6ia<^opos),2 
see  Heb.  1:4;  8:  6).  Being  instructed  [con- 
tinuously] out  of  the  law.  This  clause  ex- 
plains the  preceding.  It  was  not  by  their 
superior  natural  shrewdness,  or  their  superior 
moral  uprightness,  that  they  approved  of 
what  was  excellent;  but  because  they  had  in 
the  law  a  divine  rule  of  judgment.  The  pres- 
ent tense  of  the  participle  here,  'being  in- 
structed,' seems  designed  to  intimate,  not  that 
they  had  been  instructed  in  youth,  once  for 
all,  but  that  they  were  continually  receiving 
instruction,  through  the  weekly  reading  and 
expounding  of  the  law  in  the  synagogue. 
The  word  translated  'instructed'  is  emphatic. 
It  is  the  word  from  which  our  "catechise"  is 
derived  [and  properly  denotes  oral  instruc- 
tion]. Observe  its  use  in  Luke  1:4;  Acts 
18:  25:  Gal.  6:  6  (twice).  ["We  may  hence 
infer,"  says  the  elder  Jonathan  Edwards, 
"that  no  degree  of  speculative  knowledge  of 
things  of  religion  is  any  certain  sign  of  saving 
grace,"  and  that  a  man  may  have  "more 
knowledge  of  this  sort  than  hundreds  of  true 
saints  of  an  ordinary  education  and  most  di- 
i  vines,  yet  all  is  no  certain  evidence  of  any 
degree  of  saving  grace  in  the  heart."    He  also 


1  On  the  ending  of  this  verb,  which  is  one  of  the 
original  nncontracted  forms  of  the  second  person 
singular,  passive  and  middle,  and  which  occurs  also  in 
ver.  23;  11 :  18,  the  reader  is  referred  to  Winer,  p.  76. 


In  its  common  contracted  form  it  would  be  written 
itavx?.— (F.) 

*The  participle  is  used  only  in  the  two  passages, 
Rom.  2:18;  Phil.  1:10. 


Ch.  II.] 


ROMANS. 


75 


19  And  art  confident  that  thou  thy&elf  art  a  guide  of 
the  bliud,  a  light  of  them  which  are  iu  darkness, 

20  An  iubtruclor  of  the  foolish,  a  teacher  of  babes, 
which  hast  the  form  of  knowledge  aud  of  the  truth  iu 
the  law. 

21  Thou  therefore  which  teachest  another,  teachest 
thou  not  thyself'.'  thou  that  preachest  a  mau  should  not 
steal,  dost  thou  steal  ? 


dent  that  thou  thyself  art  a  guide  of  the  blind,  a 

20  light  of  them  that  are  in  darkness,  i  a  corrector  of 
the  foolish,  a  teacher  of  liabes,  having  iu  the  law 

21  the  form  of  knowledge  and  of  the  truth  ;  thou  there- 
fore that  teachest  another,  teachest  thou  uot  thyself? 


1  Or,  an  instructor. 


remarks  that  "the  devil  has  undoubtedly  a 
great  degree  of  speculative  knowledge  in  di- 
vinity, having  been,  as  it  were,  edueated   in 
tile  best  divinity  school  iu  the  universe,"  and 
that  "  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  tliat  any  mortal 
man,  whether  godly  or  ungodly,  has  tin  equal 
degree   of   speculative    knowledge   with    the 
devil."     See  his  Sermon  XXVIII  on  "True 
Grace."]     And    art    confident,   etc.      [The 
word   for  'and'  is  not  "the   more   einpliatic 
and  closer  connective  (xai),  Ijut  the  adjunc- 
tive (re),  and  indicates  that  what  follows  is 
dependent  on  or  flows  from  what  precedes." 
(Winer,  434.)]     In  ver.  17,  18,  we  have  four 
or  five   particulars  denoting  the  advantages 
which  the  Jew  claimed  for  himself;   and  in 
ver.  19,  20,  as  many  particulars  denoting  his 
superiority  to  the   G-entile.     ["And   first   he 
takes  the  poor  Gentile  by  the  hand,  as  one 
does  a  blind  man,  offering  to  guide  him  ;  then 
he  opens  his  eyes,  dissipating  his  darkness  b^' 
the  light  of  revelai;ion ;  then  he  rears  him  as 
one  would  bring  up  a  person  yet  without  rea- 
son ;  finally,  when  through  all   this  care   he 
has  come  to  the  stage  of  a  little  child  (cijjnos, 
who  cannot  speak,  a  term  used  by  the  Jews  to 
designate   proselytes),    he    initiates  him  into 
the  full  knowledge  of  the  truth  by  becoming 
his  teacher."     (Godet.)     In  Matt.  15:  14,  our 
Lord  upbraids  the  Pharisees  as  being  blind 
leaders  of  the  blind.]     Observe  how  the  arro- 
gance of  the  Jew  is  set  forth  in  the  form  of 
expression,  'art  confident  that  thou  thyself,' 
etc.     It  is  probable  that  these  very  titles  were 
assumed  by  the  Jewish  Rabbis  and  Pharisees. 
Indeed,  Grotius  mentions  a  work  by  Maimo- 
nides,  of  which  the  Rabbinic  title,  translated 
into  Greek,  would  correspond  precisely  with 
the  words  here  rendered :    an  instructor  of 
the  foolish.     Which  hast  [literally,  having, 
agreeing  with  thyself]  the  form  of  knowl- 
edge and   of  the  truth  in  the  law.    The 


word  here  translated  'form'  [ixofxiimaiv]  is  used 
only  in  one  other  place  in  tiie  New  Testa- 
ment. In  2  Tim.  3:5,  it  is  used  to  mark  the 
form  in  distinction  from  the  reality:  "having 
a  form  of  godliness,  but  denyirig  the  power 
tliereof."  Here,  however,  the  word  does  not 
seem  to  be  used  in  the  same  superficial  sense 
[but  rather  marks  the  reality,  the  substance 
with  the  form,  as  does  tlie  word  form  (}^o(xi,r,) 
in  Phil.  2:  6,  7.  Weiss,  in  his  "  Biblical  The- 
ology," vol.  1,  p.  319,  says  that  the  Jews  pos- 
sessed a  '■^copied  represe^itatioii  of  the  truth 
in  the  Old  Testament  law."]  It  was  an  em- 
bodiment of  true  knowledge,  a  real  rule  of 
right,  which  the  apostle  did  not  intend  to  dis- 
parage. Is  it  a  mere  fancy  that  in  tiiese  verses 
(n-20)  the  apostle  uses  a  certain  grandilo- 
quence, not  unsuitable  to  the  arrogant  preten- 
sions which  he  is  describing 7^  Having  thus 
far  shown  how  much  the  Jews  made  of  the 
theory  of  religion,  he  now  proceeds  to  show 
how  little  regard  they  paid  to  the  practice  of 
it.  And  he  does  this  with  great  energy  of 
expression,  and  in  what  seems  to  be  a  tone  of 
indignant  surprise. 

21,  22.  Thou  therefore.  ["At  length 
the  apostle  turns  to  strike."  (Jowett.)]  The 
'therefore'  marks  the  turn  of  tlie  sentence 
after  the  hypothetical  clauses  commencing 
with  ver.  17-  [The  thought  of  these  clauses 
and  of  this  'therefore.'  etc.,  seems  to  be  this: 
thou,  being  all  this,  or  rather,'  professing  all 
this,  how  is  it,  then,  that  your  conduct  is  such 
as  it  is — that  is,  the  reverse  of  all  your  pro- 
fessions? This  contradiction  between  profes- 
sion and  practice  on  the  part  of  the  Jews 
corresponds  to  that  of  the  Gentiles  (1:22),  of 
whom  the  apostle  says:  "Professing  them- 
selves to  he  wise,  they  became  fools,"  and 
acted  accordingly.]  There  is  much  force  in 
these  interrogative  sentences.  Tlie  first  is  of  a 
general  nature— teachest  thou  not  thyself? 


1  In  ver.  17  and  18  we  have  five  particulars,  express- 
ing what  the  Jew  claimed  for  himself;  and  in  ver.  19 
and  20  we  have  likewise  five  particulars,  expressing  his 
relation  to  the  Gentiles  and  the  pre-eminence  over 


them;  and  to  make  the  corrrspondence  between  the 
two  pairs  of  ver.ses  more  complete  and  noticeable,  the 
last  of  the  five  particulars  is  in  each  case  expressed  in 
the  original  Greek  by  a  participle. 


76 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  IL 


22  Thou  that  sayest  a  uiaii  should  not  commit  adul- 
tery, d<j.st  thou  cuiiiuiit  aduliery?  thou  that  abhorrest 
idols,  dost  thou  couiiuit  sacrilege? 

■S-i  Thou  tliat  luakest  tliy  boast  of  the  law,  through 
breakiug  the  law  dishonouresl  thou  God  ? 


thou  that  preachest  a  man  should  not  steal,  dost 

22  thou  steal?  thou  that  sayest  a  man  should  not  com- 
mit adultery,  dost  ihuu  commit  adultery  ?  thou  that 

23  abhorrest  idols,  dost  thou   rob  temples?   thou   who 
gloriest  in  i  the  law,  through  thy  transgression  of 


This  is  followed  by  three  specific  questions— 
or  charge:^,  we  niigiit  call  them,  in  the  form 
of  questions— each  weightier  than  the  preced- 
ing.    [Theft,  adultery,  sacrilege.     "Thou  sin- 
nest   most  grievously  against  thy  neighbor, 
thyself,  God.     Paul  had  shown  to  the  Gentiles 
that  their  sins  were  first   against  God,  next 
against  themselves,  next  against  others.     He 
now  inverts  the  order,  for  sins   against   God 
are  very  openly  practiced  among  the  Gentiles, 
but  not  by  the  Jew."     (Bengel.)     The  infini- 
tive clauses— not  to  steal,  not  to  commit  adul- 
tery—depend   upon    the    Greek    participles, 
which  have  here  the  force  of  command.     The 
participles  and  verbs   are  all  in  the  present 
tense,  denoting  present  and   continuous  ac- 
tion.]    The  first  two  are  very  plain  ;  the  tliird 
may   require   a    few    words   of   explanation. 
Although  the  Jews,  in  the  earlier  periods  of 
their  history,  were  often  reproved   for  their 
participation  in  the  idolatrous  practices  of  the 
heathen  around  and  among  tiiem,  yet  after 
their  return  from  their  captivity  in  Babylon 
they  seem  to  have  been  characterized  gener- 
ally by   their    intense    abiiorrence  of   idols. 
[Hence  the  apostle  does  not  say  :   "  Dost  thou 
worship  idols?"     We  may  remark  that  the 
word  for  abhorrest  indicates  that  the  idols 
were   regarded   as  abominable  things,    alike 
polluted  and   polluting.]    Josephus  relates  a 
striking  proof  of  this  abhorrence.    When  they 
understood  that  Pilate  had  ordered  the  mili- 
tary standards,  adorned  with  portraits  of  the 
emperors,  to  be  brought  to  Jerusalem,  multi- 
tudes of  them  rushed  to  his  palace  in  C?esarea, 
and,  disregarding  alike  his  commands  and  his 
threats,  declared  their  readiness  to  die  rather 
than    suffer  their  city   to  be   so  desecrated. 
("Antiq.,"  XVIII,  3,  1;   "Wars,"  11,9,  2, 
and   3.)     Dost    thou    commit    sacrilege? 
[This  is  the  marginal  reading  of  the  Revised 
Version.     Jowett,  in  order  to  bring  out  the 
implied  opposition,  renders  thus :   "Dost  thou 
who  alihorre.st  idols  rob  the  idol   temples?" 
And  this  contrast  is  favored  by  most  exposi- 


tors.]    Two  questions  arise  here.     Were  the 
Jews  guilty  of  profaning  the  heathen  temples? 
Would  the  apostle  account  it  sacrilege  if  they 
did  so?     As  to  the  tirst  question,  it  seems  not 
unlikely   that,  either   in   the   wantonness   of 
their  fanaticism  or  in  their  greed  for  the  costly 
olierings  with  which  idol  temples  were  often 
adorned,  they  sometimes   did   this.     An   ex- 
press prohibition  of  the  latter  form  of  profana- 
tion of  heathen  temples,  in  Deut.  7  :  25,  shows 
that  they  were   at  least  in  danger  of  doing 
this.i    [See  also  Josephus'   "Antiq.,"  IV,  8, 
10.     Some,  appealing  to  Mai.  1  :  8-14 ;  3  :  8-10 ; 
"Antiq.,"  XVIII,  3,  5,  suppose  that  the  rob- 
bery of  that  which  belonged  to,  or  was  due  to, 
God's  temple  is  alluded  to;  but  this  view  does 
not  harmonize  with  the  context.]     As  to  the 
second  question,  it  does  not  seem  altogether 
improbable,  especially  in  view  of  the  prohi- 
bition just  referred  to,  that  the  apostle  might 
apply  the  word  sacrilege  to  such  a  robberj-. 
The  case  would  then  be  as  if  he  had  said : 
"You  profess  to  abhor  idols,  but  you  have  no 
objectian  to  making  gain  by  doing  what  ex- 
poses you  to  the  charge  (on  the  jiart  of  the 
heathen)  of  sacrilege."     [We  should  not  nat- 
urally have   supposed    that    the  Jews   were 
specially  guilty  of  the  sins  enumerated,  j'et 
there  is  considerable  evidence  to  substantiate 
the  apostle's  charges.     Compare  Matt.  19:8; 
23:13-25;   James  4: 4-13;   5:1-6.     The  Jews 
themselves    confess    to    the    commonness   of 
adultery   in   those  times,  even  to  the  doing 
away   of  the  ordeal   of  jealousy.     (Farrar. ) 
We    suppose   their  wickedness   was    greatly 
augmented  in  the  years   immediately  subse- 
quent,   especially    during    the    Roman    war. 
Josephus   certainly   sets  it  forth  in  a  fearful 
light.     See  his  "Wars,"  V,  9,  4;  10,  5;  13,  6.] 
23,24.  Thou   that   makest  thy  boasts 
of  the  law  (literall}',  in  the  law),  through 
breaking    the     law    dishonourest    thou 
God?    [Inconsistently  with   thy  professions, 
thou   dishonorest  God  by  violating  his   law. 
Meyer  does  not  read  this  verse  as  a  question, 


1  Meyer  thinks  "  it  may  justly  be  inferred  from  Acts 
19 :  37  that  robbery  of  temples  actually  occurred  among 
the  Jews." 


2The  verb/tauxocot,  (see  ver.  17),  is  the  original  uncon- 
tracted  form  of  second  person  singular,  passive,  indic- 
ative middle. — (F.) 


Ch.  II.] 


ROMANS. 


77 


24  For  the  name  of  <iod  is  blasphemed  among  the 
Gentiles  through  you,  as  it  is  wriileu. 

25  For  uircii incision  verily  prolileth,  if  thou  keep  the 
law  :  but  if  Ihou  be  a  breaker  of  the  law,  tuy  ciruum- 
cision  is  made  uiicircumeisiou. 

2(5  Therefore,  if  the  uucireumcision  keep  the  right- 


24  the  law  dishonouresl  thou  God?  For  the  name  of 
tiod  is  blasphemed  among  the  (ieniiles  brcause  of 

25  you,  even  as  it  is  written.  For  cireuiucisioii  indeed 
proiiteth,  it  Ihou  be  a  doer  of  ilie  law  :  but  il  thou 
be  a  transgressor  of  the  law,  thy  eireumcisiou  is 

26  become  unelrcumeisiou.     If  therefore  the  uucireum- 


but  finds  in  it  an  an&\*t!rto  "the  four  questions 
of  reproachful  ustonishnient."]  I'or  the 
name  of  God  is  blasphemed  among  the 
Gentiles  through  you  {on  account  of  you). 
[Who  can  doubt  that  the  name  of  God  is  now 
blasplienied  in  heathen  lands  because  of  the 
wickednsss  of  inen  who  profess  to  be  Chris- 
tians?] As  it  is  written.  Paul,  in  the  above 
quotation,  has  in  mind  either  Isa.  52:  5,  or 
Ezek.  36  :  22.  According  to  the  Greek  trans- 
lation of  the  Old  Testament  [which  here  adds 
amaiuj  tlie  Gentiles  to  the  original  Hebrew], 
the  former  reference  seems  most  probable; 
according  to  the  Englisli,  the  latter.  [It  may 
be  added  that  the  meaning  of  the  passage  in 
Ezekiel  is  pertinent,  while  that  of  the  passage 
in  Isaiah  is  not  so,  according  to  a  very  proba- 
ble interpretation  of  the  original.  For  it  is 
clearly  the  Jews  who  are  rebuked  in  Ezekiel, 
while  it  is  the  Gentiles  who  seem  to  be  re- 
buked in  Isaiah.  But  the  passage  of  Isaiah 
is  obscure.  See  Alexander  on  the  passage. 
(A.  II.)  ]  [Paul  by  the  use  of /or,  which  is 
his  own  word,  appropriates  a  passage  of  Scrip- 
ture as  his  own.  "Hence  as  it  is  tvritten  is 
placed  at  the  end,  as  is  never  done  in  the  case 
of  express  quotations  of  Scripture.  The  his- 
torical sense  of  the  passage  is  not  here  regarded, 
since  Paul  has  not  quoted  it  as  a  fulfilled 
prophecy,  though  otlierwise  with  propriety  in 
the  sense  of  3:  19."   (M^yer.)] 

25.  [The  conjunction  for  corroborates  the 
foregoing  reasoning — tluxt  is,  in  the  same  v;ny 
circumrisio7i,  etc.  (Aiford.)]  Circumci- 
sion verily  profiteth,  if  thou  keep  (dost 
practice)  the  law  ;  but  if  thou  be  a  breaker 
(transgressor)  of  the  law,  thy  circumci- 
sion is  made  uncircumcision.^  The  apos- 
tle now  meets  the  false  dependence  of  the 
Jew  ui)on  his  circumcision.  It  was  a  saying 
of  the  Rabbins,  "a  circumcised  man  does  not 
go  to  hell."    ["  All  the  circumcised  have  part 


in  the  world  to  come."  "  But  for  circumci- 
sion, htiaven  and  earth  could  not  exist."  "So 
great  is  circumcision,  that  tliirteen  covenants 
were  made  concerning  it."  The  word  'cir- 
cumcision '  is  now  for  the  first  time  mentioned, 
and  it  must  have  been  a  grievous  thing  to  a 
Jew  to  have  it,  under  any  circumstances,  put 
on  a  level  with  'uucireumcision'  whicli,  in 
the  words  of  Tholuck,  signifies  "the  state  of 
exclusion  from  a  near  connection  with  God." 
Thus  to  slight  circumcision,  the  ordinance 
of  God,  the  sign  of  God's  covenant  people, 
what  could  this  be  to  a  Jew  of  that  day,  but 
a  dethronement  of  Jehovah,  a  contemptuous 
repudiation  of  his  revealed  will.  "Is  it  not," 
he  might  ask,  "by  this  covenant  of  circum- 
cision that  we  become  or  are  recognized  as 
God's  peculiar  people,  his  adopted  children  ; 
and  if  you  repudiate  this  covenant,  do  you 
not  make  us  orphans  indeed?  An  uncir- 
cumcised  Gentile  equal  in  God's  sight  to  one 
of  his  chosen  people!  Perish  the  thought!" 
We  need  not  wonder  that,  to  the  Jew,  un- 
taught by  the  Spirit  in  regard  to  Abraham's 
faith  and  the  true  circumcision,  the  gospel 
which  Paul  preached  should  be  a  stumbling 
block.]  The  apostle's  argument  is,  "inas- 
much as  your  vile  conduct  shocks  even  the 
Gentiles,  your  claim  to  God's  favor  on  the 
ground  of  your  circumcision  is  outlawed; 
for  the  benefit  of  the  sign  of  the  covenant  is 
conditioned  on  the  fiiffilhnoit  of  the  covenant 
on  your  part;  and  j'ou  have  not  fulfilled  it." 
The  latter  part  of  the  verse  is  the  emphatic 
part,  on  which  the  argument  hinges.  The 
topic  which  the  apostle  here  touches,  he  re- 
sumes, and  treats  more  full}',  in  the  fourth 
chapter,  ver.  9-12. 

26,  27.  Therefore  if  the  uncircumcis- 
ion  keep,' etc.  The  general  sense  of  these 
verses  is  very  plain  ;  the  sign  is  quite  subordi- 
nate to  the  thing  signified;  compliance  with 


1  Literally,  haf  hfcome,  but  the  perfect  tense  after 
subjunctives  with  (av,  expressing;  objective  possibility, 
is  equivalent  to  a  present.   See  7  :  2,  Winer, 203. — (F.) 

2 In  the  subjunctive  with  «af  there  is  an  "assump- 
tion of  objective  possibility,  where  experience  will  de-  1  tive.    See  Buttmann,  pp.  2J0-224. — (F.) 
cide  whether  or  not  it  is  real."   (Winer,  201.)   AViththis 


construction  there  is  always  implied  a  sed  duhilo,  I 
doubt.  For  the  frequent  classic  usag,e,  ei  with  the  op- 
tative, the  New  Testament  has  for  the  most  part  sub- 
stituted eJ  with  the  indicative,  or  idv  with  the  subjunc- 


78 


EOMANS. 


[Ch.  II. 


eousness  of  the  law,  shall  uot  his  uneircumcision  be 
couuted  tor  circumcisiou  V 
21  Aud  shall  iioi  uucircumcision  which  is  by  nature, 


cision  keep  the  ordinances  ci  the  law,  shall  uot  his 

27  uncircumcisiou  be  reckoued  lor  ciicuuicisiou  ?  and 

shall  not  the  uucircumcisioa  which  is  by  nature,  if 


the  moral  conditions  of  the  covenant  is  the 
essential  thing;  without  this,  the  rite  that 
seals  it  has  nu  value.  [The  word  for  keep  is 
in  the  present  tense,  and  properly  means  to 
guard  habitually.]  The  righteousness  of 
the  law  means  here  the  righteous  moral  pre- 
cepts of  the  law;  the  word  is  not  the  same 
tliat  is  so  often  used  in  this  Epistle,  but  a  con- 
crete derivative  from  it,  or  rather  from  the 
primitive  adjective  "righteous,"  and  is  in  the 
plural  number  righteousneases.  Ver.  25  and  26 
may  be  thus  briefly  paraphrased:  "If  thou 
art  a  breaker  of  the  law,  circumcision  is  no 
profit;  if  thou  art  a  keeper  of  the  law,  uneir- 
cumcision is  no  damage."'  This  was  a  hard 
saying  for  the  Jew.  [And  we  cannot  wonder 
if  the  Jew,  unenlightened  by  the  Spirit  of 
God,  and  ignorant  of  the  circumcision  of  the 
heart,  should  indignantly  respond:  "You 
make  an  impossible  supposition.  You  speak 
of  the  'uneircumcision' — i.  e.,  the  uncircum- 
cised  or  Gentiles — as  keeping  the  righteous 
appointments  or  ordinances  of  the  law.  Why, 
the  chiefest  ordinance  of  the  law  is  circum- 
cision itself!  "]  In  what  sense  they  are  sup- 
posed by  the  apostle  to  keep  the  requirements 
of  the  law,  we  shall  notice  presently.  Shall 
not  his  uneircumcision  be  counted  for 
circumcision  ?  See  Peter's  statement  in 
Acts  10:  35.  [Olshausen  supposes  that  in  this 
phrase,  'counted,'  or  reckoned,  'for  circum- 
cision,' "there  is  evidently  an  allusion  to  the 
'counted  for  righteousness'  in  4:  3;  that 
which  they  have  not  is  imputed  to  them  ps  if 
they  had  it."  He  further  says  :  "  The  ground 
of  this  imputation  is  this,  that  though  they 
have  not  indeed  the  sign,  they  have  instead 
of  it  the  germ  of  that  reality  which  the  sign 
represents,  .  .  .  and  therefore  they  may  not 
untruly  be  regarded  as  such  as  have  the  sign 
also."  Eilicott  remarks  that  "the  verb  [\oyC- 
io/xai,  to  account  or  reckon]  is  rather  a  favorite 
word  with  St.  Paul,  being  used  in  his  epistles 
twenty-nine  times  (excluding  quotations), 
and  twice  only  (Mark  11 :  31  is  very  doubtful) 
in  the  rest  of  the  New  Testament."  This 
verb,  commonly  regarded  as  "deponent,"  is 
yet  frequently  used,  as  here  and  in  4:  5,  in  a 
passive  sense.  Buttmann  thinks  this  phrase- 
ology :  to  be  reckoned  as  (eis)  is  "borrowed 


from  the  language  of  the  LXX  and  a  depart- 
ure from  classic  usage.J'  The  Hebrew  has 
the  same  idiom:  to  be  reckoned  for  or  to  be 
reckoned  as.  Compare  in  the  Hebrew  Job 
41:  24  (23);  Lam.  4:2;  Num.  18:  27;  Isa. 
40:  15,  with  the  Septuagint  renderings.]  The 
word  'not'  is  wanting  in  the  Greek  at  the 
beginning  of  ver.  27.  It  was  inserted  by  the 
English  translators  in  order  to  show  that  the 
interrogative  form  of  ver.  26  is  continued  to 
the  end  of  this  verse — very  properly  inserted, 
if  the  question  be  really  continued.  But 
in  the  judgment  of  Meyer,  Lange,  Alford, 
and  others,  the  interrogation  should  end 
with  ver.  26,  and  this  verse  be  understond 
affirmatively.  It  is  not  very  easy,  nor  very 
important  to  decide,  as  the  question  relates 
only  to  the  form  of  the  sentence,  and  not  to 
the  substance  of  the  thought.  On  the  one 
hand,  the  omission  of  the  negative  in  such  a 
case  is  unusual,  and  this  favors  the  view  of 
•Meyer;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  the  conjunc- 
tion "and"  and  the  position  (in  the  Greek) 
of  the  verb  "judge"  favor  the  continuation 
of  the  interrogative  form.  And  to  this  last 
we  incline,  with  Olshausen,  Lachmann,  Ew- 
ald,  etc.  In  what  sense  the  uneircumcision 
which  is  by  nature  ["he  who  remains  in  his 
natural  "state  of  uneircumcision"  (Alford)] 
shall  judge  the  circumcised  transgressor,  is 
explained  by  such  passages  as  Matt.  12:41, 
42;  Heb.  11:7.  [Thus,  "not  only  shall  the 
Gentile  take  the  place  of  the  Jew,  but  shall 
condemn  him."  (Jowett.)  "Tliose  whom 
thou  jadgest  shall  in  turn  judge  thee  at  the 
day  of  judgment,  ver.  16."  (Bengel.)  "We 
pity  the  Gentiles,"  says  Doddridge,  "and  we 
have  reason  to  do  it,  for  they  are  lamentably 
blind  and  dissolute;  but  let  us  take  heed  lest 
those  appearances  of  virtue  which  are  to  be 
found  among  some  of  them  condemn  us  who, 
with  the  letter  of  the  law  and  the  gospel  and 
with  the  solemn  tokens  of  a  covenant  relation 
to  God,  transgress  his  precepts  and  violate  our 
engagements  to  him,  so  turning  the  means  of 
goodness  and  happiness  into  the  occasion  of 
more  aggravated  guilt  and  misery."  Will 
not  the  virtues  of  many  unconverted  men  and 
non-professing  Christians,  and  of  many  Chris- 
tians whom  we  call  u.nevan§elical,  condemn 


Ch.  II.] 


ROMANS. 


79 


if  it  fulfil  the  law,  judgp  thee,  who  by  tlie  letter  and 
circuimi.-ion  dost  liaiisgr"ss  the  law  ? 

2S  F(jr  lie  is  not  a  Jew,  whitli  is  oue  outwardly  ; 
neither  is  tkat  circuaicisioii,  which  is  outward  in  the 
flesh  : 

2'J  But  he  is  a  Jew,  whicli  is  one  inwardly  ;  and  cir- 
ciimoision  is  iltal  of  the  heart,  in  tlie  spirit,  nnd  not  in 
the  letter;  whose  praise  is  not  of  men,  but  of  God. 


it  fulfil  the  law.  judge  thee,  who  with  the  letter  and 

28  circumcision  art  a  transgressor  of  the  law?  For  lie 
is  not  a  .lew,  who  is  one  outwardly  ;  neither  is  that 

29  circumcision,  which  is  outward  in  "the  tlesh  :  but  he 
is  a  Jew,  who  is  one  iuwardly  ;  and  circumcision  is 
that  of  the  heart,  in  the  spirit,  not  in  the  letter; 
whose  praise  is  not  of  men,  but  of  God. 


some  of  us  who,  as  being  dead  to  sin,  self,  and 
tliu  world,  iiave  been  buried  with  Christ  by 
baptism   into  death?     "Tlie   unbaptized   be- 
liever   shall    condemn    the    btiptized    unbe- 
liever."    Outward  bapti.«ui  is  profitable,  and 
it  is  a  duty,  but  avails  nothing  without  true 
repentance,    and    faith    in    the    Lord   Jesus 
Christ.     To  regard,  as  many  do,  the  external 
ordinance  as  regenerating   and  saving,  is   to 
look  for  salvation  in  "  works  of  righteousness 
which  we  have  done."      Peter  himself  denies 
that    outward    baptism    "saves."]     By    the 
letter  and  circumcision.     If  we  substitute 
througli'^  for  'by,'  the  meaning  will  be  more 
readily  explained.     It  was  not   by  means  of 
the    letter    and    circumcision   that    the   Jew 
transgressed  the  law;  but  these  are  regarded 
as  obstacles,  or  restraints,  through  which,  as 
through  a  hedge  by  which  God  had  graciously 
surrounded   him,  he   broke,  in   his   obstinate 
propensity  to  sin.      With  the  letter  and  cir- 
cumcision, in  spite  of  the  letter  and  circum- 
cision, he  transgresses  the  law.     "None  need 
be  anxious,"  says   Calvin,  "about  the  wor- 
shipers to  whom   Paul   here  alludes  (in  the 
former  part  of  this  verse),  for  it  is  impossible 
t'>  find  them."     [Tlie  apostle,  in  ver.  14,  makes 
a  like  supposition  in  regard  to  the  Gentiles  as 
here    in    regard    to    the    "  uncircumcision." 
Only  here  the  thing  supposed  is  for  the  time 
conceived  to  be  a  fact,  otherwise  the  article 
(»))  after  uncircumcision  would  at  least  not  be 
wanting.     So  Alford  :   ''FulJiUing  (as  \t  does, 
as  we  have  supposed)  the  law."     Of  course, 
the  natural  uncircumcision  who  had  not  the 
liivv  of  Moses  could  not  literally  keep  its  ordi- 
nances, and  it  required  some  courr.ge  on  the 
part  of  Paul  to  make  this  affirmation,  or  sup- 
position, rather,  in  the  presence,  as  it  were, 
of  an  opposing  "Jew."     Their  obedience  to 
the  law  could  manifestly  be  only  virtual  and 
relative.     As   Meyer  says:    This  observance 
of  the  Mosaic  legal  precepts   or  ordinances, 
"in  poiyii  of  fact,  takes  place  when  the  Gen- 
tile obeys  the  moral  law  of  nature."     Godet, 


however,  and  Philippi,  in  part,  hold  that  the 
"uncircumcision"  who  "fulfill  the  law"  are 
converted,  though  uncircumcised.  Gentile 
Christians.  But  there  are  no  persons  who 
absolutely  fulfill  the  law,  least  of  all  the 
"  uncircumcision  which  is  by  nature."  Such 
uncircumcision  as  this,  which,  moreover,  is 
destitute  of  the  "letter"  of  the  law,  cannot 
refer  to  Christian  believers,  nor  even  to  "those 
fearing  God,"  the  uncircumcised,  yet,  half- 
Judaized  Gentiles,  the  proselytes  of  the  gate. 
Acts  10:2,  22;  13:16,  2G.] 

28,  29.  For  he  is  not  a  Jew,  etc.  The 
expression  here  is  very  elliptical,  but  the 
sense  is  very  plain.  [Dr.  Schatf  thus  fills  out 
the  ellipses,  substantially  in  the  manner  of  De 
Wette:  for  not  the  outward  (Jew)  is  a  (true) 
Jew,  neither  is  the  outward  fleshly-  (circum- 
cision) a  (true)  circumcision,  but  the  inward 
Jew  (is  a  Jew)  and  circumcision  of  the  heart, 
etc.  (is  circumcision).  Meyer  gives  the  last 
part  thus:  "But  he  is  a  Jew,  who  is  so  in 
secret  and  circumcision  of  the  heart  (is)  in 
the  spirit,  not  in  the  letter."  As  circumcision 
is  without  the  article,  some  give  this  render- 
ing: "and  there  is  a  circumcision  of  the 
heart,"  etc.  In  this  passage,  however,  the 
Common  Version,  as  Dr.  Schafl^  says,  "can 
scarcely  be  improved."  In  Phil.  3:  8  Paul 
says:  We  are  the  (true)  circumcision  who 
serve  (or  worship)  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  and 
glory  in  Christ  Jesus,  and  have  no  confidence 
in  the  flesh.  Wh:it  a  debt  of  gratitude  we 
owe  to  Paul  under  God  for  a  gospel  of  lib- 
erty! ]  The  existence  and  importance  of  a 
spiritual  element  in  the  Old  Testament  Di.s- 
pensation  is  strongly  emphasized,  first  in  a 
negative  form  (vr.  28),  and  secondly  in  a  posi- 
tive form  (ver.  29).  Scc  similar  contrasts  be- 
tween the  spirit  and  the  letter  in  7:  6  and  2 
Cor.  3:6.  In  the  spirit.  Some  understand 
by  'spirit'  here  the  spirit  of  man;  others,  the 
Spirit  of  God.  [Meyer,  Philippi,  Godet, 
Hodge:  'in'  meaning  by  the  Iln/y  Spirit.] 
The  passages  abore  cited  seem  to  fiivor  the 


'  Sid  with  the  genitive  properly  means  through,  and  here  "  denotes  the  attendant  circumstances."    (Boise.;— .F.) 


80 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  III. 


CHAPTER  III. 


WHAT  advantage  then  hath  the  Jew?  or  what  profit 
is  there,  of  eircutucisioii  ? 
2  Much  every  way  :  chietiy  because  that  unto  them 
were  coiumitted  the  oracles  of  God. 


1  What  advantage  then  hath  the  Jew?  or  what  is 

2  the  profit  of  circumcision?    Much  every  way:  first 
of  all,  that  tliey  were  intrusted  with  the  oracles  of 


reference  to  'spirit'  in  the  absU'act,  as  distin- 
guislied  from  letter,  to  tlie  idea,  as  distin- 
guished from  the  form.  [In  spirit  here  seems 
properly  antithetical  to  in  flesh  of  ver.  28.] 
Spiritual  circumcision  [or  circumcision  of  the 
heart]  is  often  referred  to  in  the  Old.  Testa- 
ment. See  Lev.  26:  41;  Deut.  10;  16;  oO:  6; 
Jer.  4:4;  9:  26;  Ezek.  44:  9.  Compare  Acts 
7:51;  Phil.  3:  3;  Col.  2:  11.  Whose  praise, 
etc.  The  relative  pronoun  is  here  of  uncer- 
tain gender.  It  is  probably  masculine,  refer- 
ring to  the  word  Jew  [so  most  commentators] ; 
but  so  far  as  the  form  is  concerned,  it  might 
be  neuter,  referring  to  the  whole  preceding 
sentence.  So  Meyer  understands  it.  But  the 
word  'praise'  favors  the  more  limited  and 
personal  reference.  [The  Jew  sought  out- 
ward praise,  the  approval  of  men.  (Johu  5:  «; 
12:43.)  God,  who.  seeth  in  secret,  alone  can 
clearly  recognize  the  inward  circumcision, 
and  his  praise,  compjired  with  that  of  man,  is 
above  all  price.  The  word  '  praise'  may  have 
some  reference  to  the  meaning  of  "  Jew,"  the 
praised  one.  "The  Jew  who  is  one  inwardly, 
he  is  the  Jew  who  has  praise — i.  e.,  t'.iis  is  true 
Judaism."  (Bengel.)  Godet  refers  to  the 
"remarkable  parallelism"  existing  between 
this  whole  passage  and  the  declaration  of 
Jesus,  Matt.  8:  11,  12:  "Many  shall  come 
from  the  east  and  the  west  .  .  .  but  the  sons 
of  the  kingdom,"  etc.]  This  passage  suggests 
a  serious  admonition  to  those  who  are  only 
nominally  Christians,  but  strangers  to  the 
spiritual  life.  If  mere  external  conformity 
and  use  of  ordinances  did  not  suffice  to  con- 
stitute a  true  Israelite,  how  much  less  does 
mere  profession — the  strictest  observance  of 
ceremonial  and  the  liveliest  zeal  for  ortho- 
doxy—suffice to  constitute  a  true  Christian. 
It  is  just  the  essential  thing  which  they  lack. 


Ch.  3:  [In  Chapter  I  is  demonstrated  the 
sinfulnoss  of  the  Gentiles,  and  in  Chapter  II 
the  similarly  sinful  state  of  the  Jews.  This 
third  chapter  shows  that  alike  to  Gentiles  and 
to  Jews,  both    being    under    condemnation, 


notwithstanding  the  external  advantages  of 
the  latter,  there  is  but  one  method  of  justifi- 
cation— namely,  that  which  is  through  faith 
in  Jesus  Christ  set  forth  as  a  sacrifice  for  sin. 
We  may  give  as  the  more  important  theme 
of  this  chapter :  The  only  possible  justification 
for  mankind,  sinful  and  condemned,  is  by 
grace  through  faith  in  Christ  Jesus.]  The 
preceding  views  (chapter  2)  would  naturally 
meet  with  objections  in  the  mind  of  the  Jew. 
The  sum  of  these  objections  is  comprehended 
in  the  inquiries  of  the  first  verse.  What  ad- 
vantage has  the  Jew  above  the  Gentile? 
What  profit  is  there  in  circumcision?  The 
objections  are  such  as  a  Jew  would  naturally 
raise;  but  they  are  to  be  conceived  as  raised 
by  the  apostle  himself,  and  not  as  if  in  actual 
dialogue  with  a  Jewish  objector. 

1.  What  advantag:e  then.  [Literall.y: 
"  What,  then  (under  this  condition  of  things), 
is  the  advantage  of  the  Jew^' — namely,  above 
that  of  the  Gentile?  Ellicott  characterizes 
'then'  (or  therefore,  oOf)  as  "collective  and 
retrospective."]*  Here  are  two  questions;  but 
the  difference  is  more  in  form  than  in  sub- 
stance. All  would  be  expressed  in  this: 
"What  advantage  has  the  circumcised  Jew 
above  the  uncircumcised  Gentile?"  What 
the  apostle  has  been  saying  in  chapter  2,  espe- 
cially in  ver.  25-'29,  obviously  suggests  this 
inquiry.  He  seems  to  have  placed  Gentile 
and  Jew  substantiallj'  on  the  same  level  be- 
fore God,  a  view  very  offensive  to  Jewish 
pride.  "If  true  Judaism  and  true  circum- 
cision be  merely  spiritual,  what  is  the  profit 
of  external  Judaism  and  ceremonial  circum- 
cision?"    (Afford.) 

2.  Much  every  Avay :  chiefly,  because 
that  unto  them  were  committed  the  ora- 
cles of  God.  We  have  here  the  apostle's 
answer  to  the  objection  raised  by  the  inquiries 
of  the  first  verse.  In  strictness  of  construction, 
the  answer  is  adjusted  to  the  first  form  of  the 
question  only,  for  the  word  'much'  agrees  in 
gender  with  the  word  'advantage'  and  not 
with  the  word  'profit,'  and  very  properlj',  as 


1  Crosby— in  his  Greek  Grammar,  g  328— derives  oOi',  from  iov,  a  dialectic  form  of  ii',  the  present  participle 
of  the  verb  to  be,  meaning*:  it  being  so.— (F.) 


Ch.  III.] 


ROMANS. 


81 


this  is  the  main  question.  There  were  many 
advantages,  the  apostle  answers,  or,  more  ex- 
actly, there  was  inuch  advantage  in  every 
respect;  but  the  chief  advantage  of  all  was 
the  possession  of  'the  oracles  of  God,'  the 
written  law.  Some  of  the  other  advantages 
are  enumerated  in  2  :  17-20,  and  in  9  :  4,  5 ;  but 
in  both  these  enumerations  'the  oracles  of 
God'  under  the  name  of  "the  law"  have  a 
prominent  place.  Compare  also  Ps.  147:19, 
20.  Notice  how  emphatically  the  apostle  here 
affirms  the  divine  inspiration  of  the  Old  Test- 
ament. [The  word  'chiefly'  doubtless  ex- 
presses the  idea  of  the  apostle,  though  his 
words,  Jii-st  of  all  (Revised  Version),  natur- 
ally indicate  a  secondly,  which,  however,  as 
in  1  :  8,  is  omitted.  The  usual  explanation  of 
this  omission  is  that  the  apostle  loses  the  gram- 
matical sequence  of  thought  by  dwelling  so 
long  on  the  first  member  (Buttniann,  365); 
but  see  notes  on  1  : 8.  Godet  thinks  the  pre- 
ceding words,  '  every  way,'  suggest  this  idea: 
"I  might  mention  many  things  under  this 
head,  but  I  shall  confine  myself  to  one,  which 
is  in  the  front  rank;"  and  adds:  "This  form 
of  expression,  far  from  indicating  that  he 
jiurposes  to  mention  others,  shows,  on  the 
contrary,  why  he  will  not  mention  them. 
They  all  flow  from  that  which  he  proceeds  to 
indicate."  Perhaps  this  asseveration  of  the 
apostle  is  slightly  apologetic,  as  going  to  show 
that  he  does  not  disparage  the  written  law  of 
Jehovah.]  The  words  'unto  them'  are  not 
found  in  the  original ;  they  seem  to  be  neces- 
sary, only  because  the  translators  misunder- 
stood the  construction  of  the  verb,  which  they 
rendered  '  were  committed.'  The  translation 
should  be:  "They  ivere  entrusted  with  the 
oracles  of  God."  The  verb  is  passive  in  form, 
and  when  it  is  derived  from  the  active  sense 
"to  believe,"  as  it  is  in  2  Thess.  1  :  10  and  1 
Tim.  3:16,  it  is  passive  in  sense;  but  in  the 
more  common  case,  in  which  it  is  derived 
from  the  active  sense  "to  entrust"  [something 
to  some  one],  it  is  invariably  followed  by  the 


accusative  of  the  object  entrusted.  An  ex- 
amination of  the  original  in  the  following 
passages,  the  only  places  besides  the  one  under 
examination  where  the  passive  form  is  found, 
makes  this  conclusion  very  plain:  1  Cor.  9: 
17;  Gal.  2:7;  1  Thess.  2:4;  1  Tim.  1 :  11 ; 
Titus  1:3.1  ^11  i\^Q  older  versions  led  the 
way  in  this  misconstruction  of  the  verb.  '  The 
oracles  (Aoyia)  of  God.' "  The  same  word  is 
applied  to  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  in 
Acts  7  :  38;  Heb.  5  :  12:  1  Peter  4 :  11.  It  is  a 
great  'advantage'  to  possess  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures. It  was  so  to  those  who  had  only  the 
Old  Testament ;  how  much  more  to  those  who 
have  both  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New. 
Yet  how  many  neglect  to  improve  this  chief 
advantage  which  they  have  over  the  heathen. 
The  Lord  has  himself  here  decided  the  im- 
l)ortant  question,  whether  or  not  it  is  a  bless- 
ing for  the  heathen  to  have  the  Scriptures  and 
the  knowledge  of  the  way  of  salvation.  True, 
those  who  reject  the  offer  of  salvation,  and 
prefer  darkness  rather  than  light,  will  meet  a 
much  severer  doom  than  if  they  had  remained 
in  ignorance;  and  these  are  usually  the  ma- 
jority. Still,  the  possession  of  the  gospel,  the 
having  of  the  opportunitj'  to  be  saved,  is  a 
priceless  benefit.  So  God  regards  the  matter, 
and  he  here  shows  that  he  so  regards  it.  He 
virtually  shows  that  he  so  regards  it  by  com- 
manding us  to  make  known  the  gospel  to 
every  creature;  but  he  expressly  declares  that 
he  so  judges  by  pronouncing  the  possession  of 
the  Scriptures  the  chief  advantage  of  the  Jew 
over  the  Gentile.  This  text  ought  to  silence 
forever  the  objection  to  missionary  enterprise, 
so  often  advanced,  that  we  do  but  increase  the 
final  condemnation  of  the  heathen,  in  the 
majority  of  cases,  by  sending  them  the  gospel. 
Indeed,  this  way  of  reasoning,  if  it  were  fairly 
applied,  would  prove  quite  too  much  ;  it  would 
arrest  the  progress  of  evangelization  alto- 
gether, at  home  and  abroad.  It  would  forbid 
us  to  make  known  the  gospel  to  our  country- 
men, our  neighbors,  our  own  children,  even, 


1  See  further  in  Winer,  pp.  229,  2G0.  Buttinann  (pp. 
152,  189)  lu.ikes  this  to  be  akin  to  the  so-called  Greek 
accusative,  or  accusative  of  limitation.  Compare  Heb. 
2:17:  "  Faithful  (as  to,  in)  things  pertaining  to  God." — 
(F.) 

2  The  word,  while  embracing  all  the  sacred  writings 
of  the  Old  Covenant,  may  have  special  reference  in  this 
place  to  the  prophetic  statements  or  promises  concern- 


ing the  Messiah  which  are  found  in  the  Old  Testament. 
The  form  of  the  word  is  thought  by  Bengel  and  Philippi 
to  be  a  diminutive,  having  thus  a  reference  to  oracular 
brevity.  According  to  Meyer,  \oyiSia  would  l)e  the 
diminutive  form.  "  \6yi.ov  is  used  both  in  classical  and 
Hellenistic  Greek,  chiefly  of  utterances  of  the  Deity." — 
Philippi.— (F.) 


82 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  III. 


3  For  what  if  some  did  not  believe?  siiall  their  un-  I 
belief  make  the  laith  of  God  without  effect  ?  | 

4  Uod  forbid :  yea,  let  God  be  true,  but  every  man  a 
liar;  as  it  is  written,  That  thou  mightest  be  justified 


3  God.    For  what  if  some  were  without  faith?  shall 
their  waut  of  faith  make  of  none  effect  the  faithtul- 

4  ness  of  God  ?    i  God  forbid :  yea,  let  God  be  found 
true,  but  every  man  a  liar ;  as  it  is  written. 


1  6r.  Be  it  not  so  :  and  so  elsewhere. 


lest  we  should  only  aggravate  their  final  con- 
demnation.^ 
3.  For  what  if  some  did  not  believe? 

A  second  objection  is  here  presented.  The 
resemblance  of  the  three  principal  words  in 
this  verse  is  partially  lost  in  the  translation. 
Alford  [following  De  Wette]  preserves  it  in 
this  way  :  "  For  what  if  some  were  unfaithful 
[to  the  covenant],  shall  their  unfaithfulnes 
nullify  the  faithfulness  of  God?"  [Dr.  Hodge 
puts  this  language  in  the  mouth  of  a  Jew, 
relying  for  security  on  his  covenant  relation 
to  Abraham  :  "  '  What  if  we  were  unfaithful,' 
says  the  Jew,  'does  that  invalidate  the  faith- 
fulness of  God  ?  Has  he  not  promised  to  be  a 
God  to  Abraham  and  his  seed?'"  But  this 
does  not  well  suit  the  connection.  The  diso- 
bedience, or  rather  disbelief,  doubtless  has 
reference  to  these  inestimable  'oracles,'  which, 
as  being  God's  word,  will  not  fail  of  fulfill- 
ment. Meyer  and  Godet  think  Paul  has  here 
in  mind  the  disbelief  of  the  Jews  in  the  Mes- 
siahship  of  Jesus:  others  make  their  unbelief 
relate  to  their  pre-Christian  history.]  The 
case  is  mildly  stated  in  the  first  clause: 
'What  if  some  did  not  believe?'  It  might 
have  been  put  more  strongly,  as  it  is  by  Isaiah 
(53:1),  and  by  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  (3:i6).  I  think  this  verse  from  He- 
brews should  be  translated  :  "  For  v)ho  having 
heard,  did  provoke?  But  did  not  all  those 
who  came  out  of  Egypt  by  Moses? "^  But 
we  may  suppose  that  Paul  purposely  avoided, 
as  a  Jewish  objector  would  be  likely  to  do, 
stating  the  case  in  its  full  severity.  [Yet 
"  many  are  only  some  when  they  are  not  the 
whole."  Compare  11  :  17.]  The  substance  of 
the  objection  here  brought  forward  is :  "  Will 
God  fail  to  fulfill  his  promises  because  men 


fail  to  fulfill  their  engagements?"  [Some 
separate  the  first  two  words  from  the  rest  and 
render  them  :  "For  what?"  or,  "What  then? 
If  some  did  not  believe,"  etc.  There  is  a 
difference  of  idea  between  unbelieving  and 
unfaithful  or  untrue.  Meyer  and  Philippi 
take  the  words  here  in  the  sense  of  belief  or 
unbelief,  denying  that  the  word  for  unbelief 
ever  signifies  unfaithfulness  in  the  New  Test- 
ament. The  sense  of  the  passage  would  then 
be:  'Shall  their  unbelief  destroy  the  trust- 
worthiness or  truthfulness  of  God  so  that  he 
should  not  keep  his  promises?'  This  ren- 
dering seems  to  accord  best  with  the  Pauline 
use  of  the  word  faith  or  belief.  Others  would 
give  this  translation  as  most  approjiriate: 
'Shall  their  unfaithfulness  nullify  the  faith- 
fulness of  God?'  and  adduce  in  support  of 
their  view  such  passages  as  2  Tim.  2  :  13; 
Luke  12:46;  Kev.  21:8.] 

4.  God  forbid.  This  expression,  which 
occurs  thirteen  times  in  Paul's  epistles  and 
only  once  elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament 
(Luke 20:16),  doBS  uot  Contain  the  name  of  God 
in  the  original,  but  means  simply  "  Let  it  not 
be"  [or,  as  the  apostle  uses  it,  something  like: 
Perish  the  thought!  Dr.  Kiggs,  however, 
in  his  "Suggested  Modifications  of  the  Re- 
vised Version,"  thinks  the  phrase  "by  no 
means"  would  be  an  adequate  rendering.] 
It  were  better  to  adhere  to  the  above  stricter 
translation,  or  to  render  it,  as  the  revisers  of 
the  Bible  Union  and  some  others  [Noyes] 
have  done,  "far  be  it."  Here,  too,  our  trans- 
lators followed  all  their  English  predecessors. 
[Let  God  be  (regarded  as)  true.  God  is 
'  true '  (aAijS^s  =  verax)  because  he  cannot  lie : 
he  is  'true'  {aX-ri^ivoii  ^  verus)  as  opposed  to 
false   Gods  or   idols.     This  'true'   (compare 


1  We  can  imagine  that  Paul,  under  circumstances 
like  those  in  which  many  of  our  modern  missionaries 
have  been  placed,  would  have  felt  it  to  be  a  part  of  his 
apostolic  or  missionary  duty  to  set  up  schools,  instruct 
the  people,  translate  the  Bible,  superintend  its  printing, 
distribution,  etc.,  so  that  all  the  people  might  possess 
and  be  able  to  read  the  inestimable '  oracles  of  God.'  But 
how  different  his  situation  from  that  of  many  of  our 
missionaries!  He  had  no  new  language  to  learn, much 
less  had  he  any  to  create  or  put  into  written  form. 
With  the  knowledge  of  Hebrew  and  Greek,  he  could 


preach  understandingly  in  almost  every  part  of  the 
then  known  world.  The  people  to  whom  he  preached 
were  not  simple-minded  or  infantile  in  understanding, 
but  were  the  most  highly  educated  and  cultured. — (F.) 

2  We  may  here  remark  concerning  this  translation 
that  TiVes,  if  its  second  letter  have  the  acute  accent,  is 
an  interrogative  pronoun  ;  if  it  is  otherwise  accented, 
or  stands  as  an  enclitic  without  any  accent,  it  is  the 
simple  indefinite  pronoun,  as  above.  Compare  the 
TWO.  of  1 :  13  with  Tiva  of  6 :  21.— (F.) 


Ch.  III.] 


ROMANS. 


83 


in  thy  sayings,  and  uiightest  overcome  when  thou  art 
judged. 

o  But  if  our  unrighteousness  commend  the  righteous- 
ness of  God,  wliat  shall  we  say?  Is  God  unrighteous 
■who  takelh  vengeance?    (I  speak  as  a  man.) 

6  (iod  forbid :  for  then  bow  shall  God  judge  the 
■world  ? 


That  thou  migbtest  be  justified  in  thy  words. 
And   migbtest  prevail  wbtu  thou  comest   into 
judgment. 
5  But  if  our  unrighteousness  commendeth  the  right- 
eousness of  (iou^  what  shall  we  say?    Is  God  un- 
righteous who  visiteth  with  wrath?    (I  speak  after 
0  the  manner  of  men.)    God  forbid:    for  then   how 
7  shall  God  judge  the  world?    iBut  if  the  truth  of 


1  Many  aacieot  autborities  read /or. 


"God  who  cannot  lie,"  Titus  1 : 2)  favors  the 
interpretation  truthful  or  trustworthy  of  the 
last  verse.]  The  apostle  indignantly  repels 
the  supposition  that  God  should  be  untrue; 
sooner  let  that  be  admitted  which  David  said 
in  liis  haste:  "All  men  are  liars."  (ph. ii6:n.) 
[Tiiough  it  is  doubtful  whether  Paul  had  this 
Psalm  expressly  in  mind,  since  he  proceeds 
immediately  to  quote  from  another.]  And 
he  very  ai)propriately  quotes  the  words  in 
which  David  confesses  himself  a  sinner,  and 
ascribes  righteousness  and  truth  to  God. 
(Ps. 51:4.)  That  thou  inightest  overcome 
Avhen  thou  art  judged.  [Inorder  that  thou 
nuiyest,  etc.]^  The  language  'That  thou 
migbtest  overcome,'  etc.,  seems  to  be  borrowed 
from  legal  matters — at  least  it  is  such  as  is 
commonly  used  in  such  cases.  [The  transla- 
tion of  Noyes  is  as  follows  :  "That  thou  niay- 
est  be  justified  in  thj'  words  and  mayest  over- 
come when  thou  art  arraigned."  This  is  an 
exactly  literal  quotation  from  the  LXX, 
which,  as  Meyer  concedes,  "does  not  yield 
any  essential  difterence  of  sense  from  the  idea 
of  the  original  text."  If  the  last  verb  should 
be  rendered — as  by  Meyer,  Ewald,  Philippi, 
and  the  Revised  Version — actively,  "wiieii 
thou  judgest,"  it  would  correspond  more 
nearly  to  tlie  Hebrew  original.] 

5.  A  third  objection,  arising  from  the  way 
in  which  the  previous  one  was  answered. 
[Esjiecial  reference  seems  here  to  be  had  to 
the  latter  part  of  the  preceding  verse,  where 
it  is  implied  that  God  can  turn  man's  sinful 
act  to  his  own  glory,  the  exhibition  of  his 
righteousness.]     So    far    from    God's   taking 


advantage  of  man's  unfaithfulness  to  fail  in 
fulfilling  his  promises,  his  veracity  appears 
the  more  conspicuous  in  contrast  with  man's 
unfaithfulness.  Compare  the  terms  'unright- 
eousness' and  'righteousness'  in  this  verse 
with  the  unfaithfulness  and  faithfulness  [or 
unbelief  and  trustworthiness]  of  ver.  3.  If, 
then  [as  is  actually  the  case],  our  unright- 
eousness thus  commends  [or  sets  forth]  by 
contrast  the  righteousness  of  God,  shall  we 
say  that  God  is  unrighteous  in  taking  [more 
literally,  who  brings  tijion  us]  vengeance? 
that  he  cannot  righteously  punish  the  sin 
which  gives  occasion  to  the  fuller  exhibition 
of  his  righteousness? 2  I  speak  as  a  man. 
/  speak  as  men  are  wont  to  sjteak.  This  clause 
seems  to  be  inserted  apologetically,  as  if  there 
were  a  kind  of  irreverence  in  the  very  suppo- 
sition of  ij*!y  possible  unrighteouness  in  God. 
Yet  men.  clo  very  often  ascribe  unrighteous- 
ness to  God  on  suppositions  that  are  true;  so 
the  apostle  may  well  say:  'I  speak  as  a  man.' 
[De  Wette  on  this  phrase  saj^s :  "  I  speak  as 
men  speak  who  often  inconsiderately  judge 
of  God."  Bishop  Lightfoot  notices  that  this 
expression  is  found  only  in  the  group  of 
epistles  to  which  this  belongs — to  wit:  Corin- 
thians and  Galatians.] 

6.  God  forbid  :  for  then  how  shall  God 
judge  theAVorld?^  The  certainty  that  God 
?m7/!  judge  the  world  is  assumed,  as  something 
that  the  Jewish  objector  admitted,  and  so  the 
apostle  might  legitimately  argue  that  any 
supposition  incompatible  with  that  admitted 
truth  is  thereby  proved  to  be  false.  ["Paul 
assumes  that  only  the  righteous  One  can  judge 


1  Instead  of  the  subjunctive  after  oirws,  some  MSS. 
(N  A  D)  have  the  future  indicative,  which,  like  the 
use  of  a^v  after  orrwt,  occurs  but  rarely  in  the  New 
Testament.     (Huttmann,  214,  234.)— (F.) 

- '  What  shall  we  say,'  or  infer,  occurs  seven  times  in 
this  Kpistle  (4:1;  6:1;  7:7;  8 :  31 ;  9 :  14,  30),  and  is 
found  in  none  other  of  Paul's  letters.  Except  in  7  :  31 ; 
9:30,  It  introduces  a  false  conclusion.  "The  wrath" 
(as  in  Revised  Version)  is  that  retributive  wrath  of 
God  already  spoken  of  (1  :  18;  2:  5,  8).  '-This  ques- 
tion," says  Meyer,  "  is  so  put  that,  as  in  ver.  3,  a  nega- 


tive answer  is  expected."  For  the  particle  (m^^,  when 
used  as  the  sign  of  a  question,  always  supposes  an 
answer  in  the  negative.  See  9 :  20;  11  :  1;  Winer,  p. 
511.  Some  writers  think  there  are  occasional  excep- 
tions to  this  rule. — (F.) 

"The  normal  force  of  the  word  here  rendered  'for 
then'  may  be  seen  by  supplying  an  ellipsis,  thus:  Far 
be  it,  since  (in  that  case)  bow  shall  God  judge  the 
world?  Buttmann  (233,  yet  see  359)  renders  it  by 
"/or,"  simply:  "For  how  shall  God  judge  the  world" 
(if  he  be  unrighteous)  ?— (F.) 


84 


EOMANS. 


[Ch.  III. 


7  For  if  the  truth  of  God  hath  more  abounded 
through  my  lie  unto  his  glory;  why  yet  am  I  also 
judged  as  a  siuner? 

8  And  not  rather,  (as  we  be  slanderously  reported,  | 


God  through  my  lie  abounded  unto  his  glory,  why 

8  am  J  also  still  judged  as  a  s'uner?  and  why  not  (as 

we  are  slanderously  reported,  and  as  some  amrm  that 


the  world."  (Weiss.)  Some,  however,  re- 
gard this  as  assuming  the  very  thing  to  be 
proved,  and  affirm  tliat  it  is  no  more  certain 
that  tlie  Judge  of  tiie  world  must  be  just  than 
that  God  is  just.  (Hodge.)  But  it  is  a  very 
natural  assumption,  for,  "Shall  not  the  judge 
of  all  the  earth  do  right?"  It  seems  likewise 
to  be  taken  for  granted  that  in  God's  judg- 
ment of  the  world  of  sinners  there  must  be 
the  infliction  of  wrath.  The  conscience  of 
the  transgressor  acknowledges  his  desert  of 
wrath,  and  even  the  righteousness  of  the 
Heavenly  Father  in  inflicting  it.  Eight  rea- 
son would  concede  at  once  that  God,  though 
our  Heavenly  Father,  has  a  right  to  visit  with 
wrath  where  it  would  be  improper  for  an 
earthly  parent  to  do  so.  On  this  point,  some 
men  in  their  reasonings  have  made  a  mistake. 
In  remembering  the  "fatherhood  of  God," 
they  have  forgotten  his  rightful  and  infinite 
sovereignty.  Even  Farrar  acknowledges  that 
"We  may  not  push  the  truths  of  the  finite 
and  the  temporal  into  the  regions  of  the  infi- 
nite and  eternal."]  The  supposition  that  he 
could  not  righteously  punish  the  unrighteous- 
ness which  commended  his  righteousne«s, 
would  be  incompatible  with  his  being  the 
Judge  of  the  world,  for  all  unrighteousness 
of  man  is,  or  may  be,  the  occasion  of  showing 
God's  righteousness  more  conspicuously,  and 
so  there  would  be  nothing  left  for  hiin  to  judge 
and  punish.  The  argutnent  from  the  greater 
to  the  less,  from  the  general  to  the  particuhir, 
here,  is  the  same  in  principle  as  in  Matt.  6  :  25, 
and  in  1  Cor.  6:2.  [Hodge  speaks  of  it  as  a 
reductio ad absurdum.]  "Intellectual  difficul- 
ties in  religion  are  best  met  by  moral  axioms. 
It  may  sound  plausible  to  say  :  '  If  man's  sin 
contributes  ultimately  to  God's  justification, 
God  cannot  justly  punish  it;'  but  conscience, 
ever  a  safer  guide  than  the  intellect,  echoes 
the  language  of  revelation,  which  declares  the 
coming  judgment,  and  that  judgment  presup- 
poses that  sin  can  be,  and  will  be,  justly  pun- 
ished. The  method  of  Scripture  is  to  state 
each  of  two  apparently  conflicting  principles 
{e.g.,  God's  grace  and  man's  responsibility) 


singly  and  separately',  and  leave  conscience, 
ratlier  than  intellect,  to  reconcile  and  adjust 
them."  (Dr.  Yaughan.)  The  expression 
'  God  forbid  '  is  explained  under  ver.  4. 

7.  This  verse  seems  to  be  substantially  but 
a  restatement  of  the  objection  in  ver.  5,  but 
in  the  statement  the  form  is  changed  in  sev- 
eral particulars.  The  identity  of  the  objection 
for  substance  is  confirmed  by  the  same  intro- 
ductory ])hrase  in  both.  For  if.i  The  difter- 
ences  of  form  are:  1.  In  ver.  5,  first  clause, 
man's  unrighteousness  is  the  subject  and 
God's  righteousness  the  object  (grammatically 
speaking)  ;  while,  in  ver.  7,  God's  truth  ["in 
fulfilling  his  promises"  (Boise)]  is  the  sub- 
ject and  man's  falsehood  the  object.  2.  In 
ver.  5,  first  clause,  the  generic  terms,  right- 
eousness and  unrighteousness,  are  used;  in 
ver.  7,  the  more  specific  terms,  truth  and  false- 
hood, are  substituted,  suggested,  doubtless,  by 
ver.  4.  3.  In  ver.  5,  second  clause,  the  ques- 
tion is:  Can  God  justly  punish  man?  In  ver. 
7,  the  question  is:  Can  man  be  justly  pun- 
ished? And  this  reversing  of  the  difficulty 
from  the  divine  side,  or  standpoint,  to  the 
human  is  emphasized  by  the  use  of  the  per- 
sonal pronoun,  I  also.  [The  full  force  of  this 
last  clause  is  something  like  this:  "Why  afn 
even  I  who  in  my  lie  have  contributed  to  God's 
glory,  still  judged  of  God  as  a  sinner  ?  "  The 
sinner  is  ever  desirous  to  justify'  himself,  even 
though  he  has  to  charge  God  foolishly  and 
wickedly  in  doing  so.  "  If  there  is  evil  in  tlie 
world,  who  is  responsible  for  it  but  God  him- 
self? And  if  my  sin  is  God's  gtorj',  wliy  is 
he  angry  with  me,  and  why  should  hot  I  be 
rewarded  rather  than  punished?"  Of  course, 
he  is  not  sincere  in  this  self-defense,  for  lie 
knows  that  in  his  transgression  he  did  not 
intend.  God's  glory.] 

8.  The  answer  to  this  modified  form  of  the 
third  objection  is  made  somewhat  obscure  by 
the  elliptical  character  of  the  verse.  Yet  the 
difficulty  pertains  rather  to  the  precise  gram- 
matical construction  of  the  sentence  than  to 
the  nature  of  the  argument.  The  insertion  of 
two  little  words  will  help  to  develop  the  sense: 


i".But,"  rather  than  'for,'  is  the  better  sustained 
reading  in  ver.  7. — (F.)  [It  seems  to  me  that,  accord- 
ing to  Tischeudorf's  eighth  edition,  'for'  is  sustained 


by  quite  as  much  evidence  as  "but."  Yet  the  author- 
ity, as  furnished  by  manuscrijits,  versions,  and  patristic 
citations,  is  pretty  evenly  balanced. — A.  H.] 


Ch.  III.] 


ROMANS. 


85 


"And  why  not  rather  say,"  etc.?  Whj' not 
speak  out  the  full  thought  which  lurks  in  this 
objection?  [In  reference  to  this  construction, 
see  Winer,  p.  028.  Instead  of  let  us  do  evil, 
etc.,  introduced  as  a  quotation,  and  dependent 
on  we  say,  we  should  naturally  have  expected 
a  question  similar  in  form  to  the  preceding, 
the  two  questions  reading  thus:  Why  yet 
am  I  also  judged  as  a  sinner?  And  why 
should  not  I  do  evil,  etc.?  If  we  supply  the 
word  say,  as  some  do,  the  construction  be- 
comes quite  regular,  thus:  And  why  not  sny, 
as  some  affirm  that  we  say,  'let  us  do  evil,' 
etc.  ?  Observe  the  change  from  the  singular 
— "I,"  of  ver.  7— to  the  plural  of  this  verse. 
The  simple  outline  of  the  objector's  thought 
.seems  to  be  this:  "If  my  unbelief,  unright- 
eousness, untruth,  contribute  to  God's  glor^'. 
'  wh3'  yet  am  I  also  judged  as  a  sumer; '  and 
why  should  I  not  persevere  in  doing  (what  is 
called)  evil  that  God's  glory  may  be  further 
eiilianced;  and  why  should  not  I  be  rewarded 
rather  than  punished  therefor?"  Whose 
damnation  (judgment)  is  just  is  Paul's  only 
answer  to  tli'ose  who  hold  such  abominable 
doctrine.  "  Syllogistically  stated,"  says  Far- 
rar,  "the  existence  of  evil  might  be  held  to 
demonstrate  either  tlie  weakness  or  cruelty  of 
God,  but  such  syllogisms,  without  the  faintest 
attempt  to  answer  them,  are  flung  aside  as 
valueless  and  irrelevant  by  the  faith  and  con- 
science of  mankind.  The  mere  statement  of 
some  objections  is  their  most  effective  refuta- 
tion. .  .  .  However  logically  correct,  they  are 
so  morally  repulsive,  so  spiritually  false,  that 
silence  is  the  onlj'  answer  of  which  they  are 
worthy."  But  is  it  not  a  little  singular  that 
"advanced"  objectors  of  our  time  will  hardly 
allow  the  existence  of  any  "evils"  in  this 
universe  until  you  suggest  to  them  the  exist- 
ence of  an  Almighty  and  all-wise  One,  who 
is  able  to  control  these  evils  and  to  educe  good 
out  of  them  ?  Yet,  apart  from  the  idea  of  a 
gracious  and  all-wise  Providence,  our  ills 
would  be  evils  indeed  and  well-nigh  unbear- 
able. We  need  in  this  world  the  sustaining 
thought  which  alone  supported  the  Saviour: 
"The  cup  which  my  Fatlier  hath  given  me, 
shall  I  not  drink  it?"]  It  is  not  very  strange 
tliat  those  high  views  of  the  divine  sover- 
eignty, which  Paul  sets  forth  in  this  Epistle, 


should  be  malignantly  misrepresented,  as  he 
says  they  were,  and  as,  in  fact,  they  still  are. 
But  he  puts  the  brand  of  his  severest  reproba- 
tion upon  the  Jesuitical  principle:  'Let  us  do 
evil,  that  good  may  come.'  They  who  profess 
such  a  pernicious  doctrine,  he  says  [not  those 
who  so  slander  us],  are  justly  condemned, 
whose  condemnation,  judgment  [perhaps  re- 
ferring to  their  being  'judged  as  sinners'],  is 
just. 

Notice  the  different  ways  in  which  these 
three  objections  are  answered.  The  first 
(verses  1,  2)  by  a  direct  and  specific  assertion; 
the  second  (verses  3,  4)  by  an  indignant  repu- 
diation of  the  objector's  inference  (a  more 
specific  reply  being  reserved  to  9:  G-13);  the 
third  (verses  5-8)  by  showing  that  the  princi- 
ple of  the  objection  is  at  variance  with  ad- 
mitted truth,  and  shocking  to  the  moral  sense, 
and  so  refutes  itself.  The  review  of  these 
verges  suggests  several  reflections:  1.  It  is 
legitimate  to  argue  from  our  intuitive  moral 
perceptions.  2.  The  doctrine  which  never 
provokes  from  perverse  men  such  objections 
as  these  must  be  different  from  the  doctrine 
which  Paul  preached.  3.  The  habit  of  object- 
ing against  the  principles  of  the  divine  gov- 
ernment, and  the  doctrines  of  the  divine 
word,  is  no  new  thing.  Christians  need  not 
be  surprised  nor  perplexed  when  thej-  meet 
with  such  objections.  Most  of  the  objections 
are  only  old  ones  revived — the  very  same  in 
substance  that  the  first  promulgators  of  Chris- 
tianity had  to  encounter.  If  they  could  meet 
them  calmly  and  confidently,  how  little  ought 
they  to  disturb  us!  4.  The  way  in  which  the 
apostle  meets  these  objections  may  afford  us 
instruction.  There  are  three  fundamental 
truths  against  which  objections  and  cavils, 
however  pjausible,  are  not  entitljed  to  any 
weight.  These  are,  (a)  God's  truth  and 
righteousness;  come  what  will,  these  are 
never  to  be  questioned.  (6)  The  future  judg- 
ment; this  is  one  of  the  surest  doctrines  of 
revelation,  and  one  which  meets  an  answering 
echo  in  the  conscience  of  man.  (c)  The 
essential  quality  of  moral  actions;  any  doc- 
trine or  sentiment  that  shocks  our  fundamen- 
tal moral  perceptions  must  be  rejected  at 
once  as  coming  from  the  father  of  lies.*  [It 
will  doubtless  be  urged  by  the  objectors  to  the 


'  The    "  Momoirs    and    Confessions    of   Reinhard  " 
(born  1753,  died  ;S12,  court  preacher  at  Dresden  from 


1792)  records  an  interesting  illustration  of  the  efficacy 
of  settled  moral  principles  in  giving  the  mind  a  firm 


86 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  III. 


and  as  some  affirm  that  we  say,)  Let  us  do  evil,  that 
good  may  coiue?  whose  damnation  is  just. 
9  What  then?  are  we  better  than  they  f    No,  in  no 


we   say),    Let  us  do  evil,  that   good  may  come? 
whose  condemnation  is  just. 
9      What  then  ?  are  we  better  than  they?    No,  in  no 


doctrine  of  "eternal  punishment,"  that  it 
perfectly  "shocks"  their  moral  sense,  and 
that,  therefore,  there  can  never  be  in  this  uni- 
verse of  a  God  of  love  anything  so  utterly 
shocking  as  an  individual  suffering  consciously 
to  all  eternity,  even  though  this  suffering  be 
mental  and  in  consequence  of  personal  trans- 
gressions. We  freely  confess  that  the  idea  of 
an  eternity  of  suffering  is  shocking  to  our 
natural  feelings,  and  so  is  the  bodily  and 
mental  anguish  which  men  suffer  in  this 
world.  We  could  not  for  an  instant  endure 
the  sight  of  the  collective  amount  of  suffering 
which  exists  every  moment  in  the  earth. 
"  Syllogistically  stated,"  as  Farrar  says,  "the 
existence  of  evil  might  be  held  to  demonstrate 
either  the  weakness  or  the  cruelty  of  God," 
that  is,  when  regard  is  had  to  but  one  set  of 
facts.  From  one  point  of  view,  no  man  liv- 
ing can  explain  a  solitary  groan,  a  single  tear, 
in  all  this  universe  of  God.  And  in  a  uni- 
verse of  chance  neither  this  nor  anything 
else  can  be  explained.  Still,  all  reflecting 
persons,  with  scarcely  an  exception,  unite  in 
declaring  that  God  is  good,  though  it  is 
through  his  arrangement  of  causes  and  means 
and  under  his  permission,  that  all  this  earthly 
suffering  takes  place.  Nor  would  they  per- 
haps be  shocked  at  the  idea  of  God's  permit- 
ting a  man  to  live  forever  on  the  earth,  sin- 
ning and  suffering  in  the  manner  he  does 
now.  So  also  an  apostle,  while  not  ignorant 
certainly  of  the  pain  and  wretchedness  ex- 
perienced in  this  world  of  sin  and  death — a 
world  which  our  limited  wisdom  and  good- 
ness would  not  care  to  create  nor  will  to  exist 
—could  yet  unhesitatingly  affirm  that  "God 
is  love!"  Truly  there  is,  notwithstanding 
such  an  inconceivable  amount  of  human 
misery,  abundant  evidence  of  the  goodness  of 


God,  and  hence  the  idea  of  such  a  degree  of 
suffering  in  this  world  of  sin,  where  yet  God's 
power  and  providence  have  absolute  control, 
and  can  also  educe  good  out  of  evil,  does  not 
"shock  our  fundamental  moral  conceptions." 
Why  may  we  not,  during  the  eternity  that  is 
before  us,  cherish  these  same  views  of  the 
goodness  of  God,  and  of  his  moral  govern- 
ment, even  though  sin  should  be  allowed  to 
exist  forever  and  as  "eternal  sin"  (Mark  3: 
29,  Revised  Version)  to  be  eternally  punished? 
Certainly  our  merciful  Saviour  could  not 
have  spoken  of  "eternal  punishment"  in  the 
way  he  did— in  contrast  with  "eternal  life" — 
unless  those  words  of  fearful  import  were 
true.  But  it  is  in  view  of  such  teachings  as 
these  that,  as  in  the  apostle's  time  so  nowa- 
days, men  who  do  not  realize  that  it  is  not  for 
"  such  poor  creatures  as  we"  fully  to  under- 
stand all  parts  of  an  "infinite  scheme"  (But- 
ler), are  disposed  to  charge  God  with  unright- 
eousness.] 

Having  answered  these  objections,  the  apos- 
tle now  returns  to  the  point  where  he  left  off 
at  the  end  of  chapter  2.  The  Jews  have  great 
privileges  and  outward  advantages;  but  in 
regard  to  justification  before  God,  they  stand 
on  the  same  footing  with  the  Gentiles. 

9.  What  then  ?  What  is  the  result  of  the 
foregoing  discussion?  Are  we  better  than 
they?  That  is,  "we  Jews,  than  they  Gen- 
tiles?" "He  addresses  the  Jews  in  the  third 
person,  'when  he  claims  a  pre-eminence  for 
them  (verse  1),  but  joins  himself  with  them 
in  the  first  person  now,  in  denying  their 
superior  merit."  (Calvin.)  The  verb  trans- 
lated, "are  we  better?"  is  variously  ex- 
plained. It  does  not  occur  elsewhere  in  the 
New  Testament.  Literally,  it  would  be  trans- 
lated, do  roe  Jiold  ourselves  before?     Probably 


anchor,  when  assailed  by  a  tempest  of  doubts  and 
questionings.  He  was  professor  of  both  philosophy  and 
theology  in  the  University  of  Wittemberg,  and  re- 
quired to  lecture  in  both  sciences,  at  a  time  when  his  own 
views  were  very  unsettled.  The  striking  of  the  clock 
which  called  him  to  the  lecture  room  often  found  him 
walking  his  chamber  with  tears,  engagt'd  in  earnest 
prayer  to  God,  that  he  would  not  suffer  him  *o  say  any- 
tliing  detrimental  to  religion  and  morality.  Of  his 
state  of  mind  at  this  time  he  thus  writes:  "Notwith- 
standing the  uncertainty,  however,  in  which  all  my 
knowledge,  even  that  which  I  had  considered  as  rest- 


ing upon  a  solid  basis,  was  about  this  time  involved, 
two  principles  remained  by  me  unshaken  :  j?rs/,  never 
to  permit  myself  to  indulge  in  any  explanation  in 
philosophy  which  did  violence  to  my  moral  feelings; 
and  second,  never  to  assert  anything  in  theology  which 
was  at  variance  with  the  obvious  declarations  of  the 
Bible."  Letter  7,  p.  49.  This  little  book,  consisting  of 
letters  to  a  friend,  giving  an  account  of  his  education, 
was  translated  by  Oliver  A.  Taylor,  Resident  Licentiate 
at  Andover,  Mass.,  and  published  in  Boston,  in  1832.  It 
is  an  admirable  help  to  students  in  theology.  I  fear  it 
is  now  out  of  print. 


Ch.  III.] 


ROMANS. 


1/ 


vise ;  for  we  have  before  proved  both  Jews  and  Gen- 
lile^,  thai  ihey  are  all  under  siu  ; 

10  As  it  is  written,  There  is  none  righteous,  no,  not 
one: 

11  There  is  none  that  understandeth,  there  is  none 
that  seekelh  after  God. 

12  Thev  are  all  gone  out  of  the  way,  they  are 
together  'become  unprofitable;  there  is  none  that  doeth 
good,  no,  not  one. 


wise:    for   we  before  laid   to  the  charge  both   of 

10  Jews  and  lireeks,  that  they  are  all  under  siu;  as 
it  is  written. 

There  is  none  righteous,  no,  not  one  ; 

11  There  is  none  that  understandeth. 
There  is  none  that  seekelh  af.er  God  ; 

12  They  have  all  turned  aside,  they  are  together 

become  unprofitable; 
There  is  none  that  doeth  good,  no,  not  so  much 
as  one: 


the  meaning  is,  "have  we  any  excuse?"  — 
anything  to  hold  before  ourselves  as  a  pretext? 
[So  Meyer.  The  '  what,' however,  cannot  be 
joined  to  the  verb,  as  tliis  would  require  noth- 
ing {oi/Siv),  instead  of  wo,  for  an  answer.  The 
Canterbury  Revision  has  this  rendering:  "are 
we  in  worse  case  than  they?"  and  in  the  mar- 
gin: "do  we  have  any  advantage?"  or,  "do 
we  excel?"  Godet  renders  it:  "are  we 
sheltered?"  Beet:  "are  we  shielding  our- 
selves?" The  verb  here  "clearly  cannot  be 
passive,  "according  to  Winer,  though  else\yhere 
in  this  form  it  is  generally  so  used.  It  occurs 
only  here  in  the  New  Testament.]  The  words 
'than  they'  are  not  in  the  original;  and  if  we 
have  rigtitly  apprehended  the  meaning  of  the 
verb,  they  are  not  needed.  No,  in  no  wise. 
[Literally — not  entirely.  Instead  of  this  order 
of  words  we  should  have  expected  the  reverse, 
as  in  1  Cor.  16:  12.  For  the  position  of  the 
negative  here,  which  some  regard  as  mis- 
placed, see  Winer,  554.  "The  Jew  would 
say  :  altogether,  but  Paul  contradicts  him." 
(Bengel.)  Morison,  as  quoted  by  Godet,  thinks 
it  enough  to  make  a  pause  after  not  in  reading, 
thus:  no,  absolutely,  or  no,  certainly.  Winer 
also  remarks  that  "a  half  comma  [after  7iot] 
would  at  once  remove  all  ambiguity."  He 
supposes  that  the  meaning  "  was  probably  in- 
dicated by  the  mode  of  utterance."  Buttmann 
(pp.  381,  121)  thinks  that,  according  to  New 
Testament  usage,  the  position  of  the  n^^gative 
with  the  word  meaning  every  or  all  (>ra?)  is 
oftentimes  a  matter  of  indifference.]  The 
apostle  answers  the  question  here  in  just  the 
opposite  way  to  his  answer  of  the  question  in 
verse  1.  There,  it  was  a  question  of  compar- 
ative privileges  and  opportunities,  in  which 
the  Jew  had  great  advantages  over  the  Gen- 
tile; here,  it  is  a  question  of  comparative 
standing  before  God  in  respect  to  justification, 
and  in  this  the  Jew  had  no  advantage  at  all. 
For  we  have  before  proved  both  Jews  and 


Gentiles.  ['For'  confirms  the  preceding 
negation.  The  word  'proved'  seems  to  have 
the  force  of  a  legal  indictment:  we  have  pre- 
viously accused  or  charged  Jews  as  well  as 
Greeks  as  being  all  under  sin,  and  we  regard 
the  accusation  as  good  as  proved.  By  the  use 
of  'we,'  he  perhaps  associates  Christian  be- 
lievers with  himself  in  this  judgment,  though 
it  may  be  simply  the  plural  of  authorship.  As 
in  1 :  6;  2:  9,  10,  so  here,  the  apostle  mentions 
the  Jew  before  the  Greek.]  He  had  proved 
this  in  respect  to  the  Gentiles  in  1 :  18-32;  and 
in  respect  to  the  Jews  in  chapter  2.  Under 
sin  signifies  to  be  under  its  power,  and  con- 
sequently liable  to  its  penalty. i  This  charge, 
which  he  has  already  proved  by  describing 
their  character  and  actions  in  his  own  words, 
he  now  proceeds  to  confirm  by  citing  the 
words  of  the  Old  Testament. 

10-18.  ["  The  passages  quoted  describe  the 
moral  corruption  of  the  times  of  David  and 
the  prophets,  but  indirectlj'  of  all  times,  since 
human  nature  is  essentially  the  same  always 
and  everywhere."  (Schaff.)  "That  com- 
plaint (of  David  and  Isaiah)  describes  men  as 
God  looking  down  from  heaven  finds  them, 
not  as  his  grace  makes  them."  (Bcngcl.)] 
The  words  immediately  following  as  it  is 
written,  to  the  end  of  ver.  10,  seem  to  be  an 
epitome,  in  the  apostle's  own  words,  of  the 
substance  of  what  follows.  The  remainder  to 
the  end  of  ver.  18  is  quoted  almost  literally, 
according  to  the  Septuagint,  from  various 
places  in  the  Psalms,  and  the  prophecies  of 
Isaiah.  [Ver.  10-12  from  Ps.  14:  1-3;  ver.  13 
from  Ps.  5:  9;  140:  3;  ver.  14  from  Ps.  10:  7; 
ver.  15-17  from  Isa.  59:  7,  8;  ver.  18  from  Ps. 
36:  1.  There  is  none  that  understand- 
eth, etc. — literally,  he  that  under utandrth  i.s 
not  (or,  does  not  exlnt).  There  is  none  that 
seeketh  after  God,  etc.  There  is  none 
ri§;hteous,  etc.  In  the  same  Psalm  (14), 
from   which    apparently   this   is  quoted,    we 


1  See  the  expressions :  under  law,  under  a  curse,  un- 
der grace,  etc.  .\11  these  nouns  are  in  the  accusative 
case,  the  dative  after  iurd,  which  would  here  seem  to 


be  quite  as  appropriate,  not  occurring  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament.— (F.) 


88. 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  III. 


13  Their  throat  is  an  open  sepulchre;  with  their 
tongues  they  have  used  deceit;  the  poison  of  asps  is 
under  iheir  lips: 

14  Whose  mouth  is  full  of  cursing  and  bitterness: 

15  Their  feet  are  swift  to  shed  blood : 

16  iJestruction  and  misery  are  in  their  ways: 

17  And  the  way  of  peace  have  they  not  known: 

18  There  is  no  fear  of  God  before  their  eyes. 

19  Now  we  know  that  what  things  soever  the  law 


13  Their  throat  is  an  open  sepulchre: 

With  their  tongues  they  have  used  deceit: 
The  poison  of  asps  is  under  tjieir  lips : 

14  Whose  moutli  is  full  of  cursing  and  bitterness: 

15  Their  feet  are  swift  to  shed  blood ; 

16  Destruction  and  misery  are  in  their  ways; 

17  And  the  way  of  peace  have  they  not  known: 

18  There  is  no  fear  of  God  before  their  eyes. 

19  Now  we  know  that  what  things  soever  the  law 


read  of  the  generation  of  the  righteous,  and 
of  the  poor  whose  refuge  is  Jehovah.  Yet 
there  is  no  real  inconsistency  in  these  diverse 
representations.  "In  the  deep  inner  sense 
wliich  St.  Paul  gives  to  the  passage,  'the 
generation  of  the  righteous'  would  be  the  first 
to  acknowledge  that  they  form  no  exception 
to  the  universal  sinfulness  asserted  in  the 
opening  verses  of  the  Psalm."  ("  Bible  Com- 
mentary.")] Their  throat  is  an  open  (lit- 
erally, opened)  sepulchre.  [This  thirteenth 
verse  agrees  wholly  with  the  Septuagint.] 
Some  understand  the  first  clause  as  referring 
to  the  insatiable  destructiveness  of  the  grave ; 
["It  is  death  to  some  one  whenever  they  open 
their  mouths."  (Grimm)] ;  others  as  represent- 
ing the  nauseous  and  poisonous  odor  that 
issues  from  a  newly-opened  sepulchre.  The 
latter  reference  agrees  better  with  the  partici- 
ple opened,  and  gives  a  sense  more  distinct 
from  what  follows  in  ver.  15-17.  Calumny  is 
a  pestiferous  vice.  [Meyer  finds  the  compari- 
son in  the  point  that  "  when  the  godless  have 
opened  their  throats  for  lying  and  corrupting 
discourse,  it  is  just  as  if  a  grave  stood  opened 
(observe  the  perfect)  to  which  the  corpse 
ought  to  be  consigned  for  decay  and  destruc- 
tion. So  certainly  and  unavoidably  corrup- 
ting is  their  discourse."  It  requires,  as  it 
would  seem,  more  than  one  verse  to  describe 
the  sins  of  throat,  tongue,  lips,  and  mouth. 
How  much  misery  they  bring  to  the  world 
when  they  are  under  the  dominion  of  sin  ! 
A  hasty  word  ;  how  easily  it  is  spoken  even  hy 
a  Christian  believer!  Yet  how  it  grieves  the 
Holy  Spirit,  and  how  it  grieves  his  own  spirit, 
and  perchance  the  spirit  of  a  fellow  mortal,  a 
fellow  Christian. 

Oh  !  many  a  shaft  at  random  sent, 
Finds  mark  the  archer  little  meant.] 

With  their  tongues  they  have  used  de- 
ceit. [Habitually  used  it  (imperfect  tense) ; 
and  we  may  still  exclaim:  O  thou  deceitful 
tongue!]  The  poison  of  asps  is  under 
their  lips.  [In  the  expression  (Ps.  10:  7) 
"under  his  tongue  is  mischief"   niost  inter- 


preters, according  to  Hengstenberg,  take  the 
metaphor  "  from  the  poison  of  serpents  which 
is  concealed  under  the  teeth  [or  tongue],  and 
from  thence  is  pressed  out  as  is  mentioned  in 
Ps.  140:  8,  'Adder's  poison  is  under  their 
lips.'"]  "Behind  the  cunning  of  falsehood 
there  is  deadly  malice."  (Lange.)  Their  feet 
are  swift  to  shed  blood.  They  commit 
murder  on  the  slightest  provocation.  De- 
struction [literally,  a  breaking  together  or 
crushiyig]  and  misery  are  in  iheir  ways. 
They  spread  destruction  and  misery  in  their 
ways,  wherever  they  go.  And  the  way  ol 
peace  have  they  not  known.  They  know 
not  [nor  wish  to  know]  how  to  live  peacefully, 
[or  walk  in  the  way  of  peace,  "the  way  that 
leads  to  peace."  (Schaff.)]  The  way  of  peace 
is  one  of  happiness  and  safety,  free  from  the 
'destruction  and  misery'  of  the  sinner's 
'ways.'  No  fear  of  God.  This  corresponds 
with  the  'no  seeking  after  God'  in  ver.  11. 
How  refreshing  by  way  of  contrast  to  think 
of  one  saying:  "Whom  have  I  in  heaven 
but  thee,  and  there  is  none  upon  earth  that  I 
desire  beside  thee!  "  This  dark  catalogue  of 
divine  testimonies  to  human  depravity  is  not 
without  orderly  arrangement.  Ver.  10-12 
emphatically  affirm  the  universality  of  human 
sinfulness;  ver.  13,  14,  relate  to  sins  of  the 
tongue;  ver.  15-17,  to  sins  in  action,  especially 
sins  oi  violence ;  ver.  18  assigns  the  inward  sin- 
ful cause  of  all  these  vicious  habits.  They  are 
traceable  to  the  absence  of  pious  reverence  for 
God.  Notice  how  this  agrees  with  the  repre- 
sentation in  1  :  '24-31. 

19.  Now  we  know.  It  is  self-evident  to 
all,  it  agrees  with  common  sense.  [The  verb 
is  literally  have  seen,  but,  used  as  in  the  pres- 
ent tense,  signifies  to  know.]  The  law— that 
is,  the  Jewish  law,  not  in  a  restricted  sense 
(for  these  quotations  are  not  from  the  Penta- 
teuch, but  from  the  Psalms  and  prophets),  but 
in  a  broad  sense  equivalent  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment Scriptures.  In  this  broad  sense  'the 
law  '  is  often  used.  See  John  10:  34;  12:  34; 
15:  25;  1  Cor.  14:  21,  etc.  [It  is  generally 
supposed  that  the  Scriptures  tool^  thus  the. 


Cfi.  ni.] 


ROMANS. 


89 


Baith    it  saitli  to  them  who  are  under  the  law:   that 
eveiy   month  may  be  stopped,  and  all  the  world  may 

becoiiie  KO'l'y  l»'''""''^*Jo*l-  ,  ,    „   ' 

20  Therefore  by  I  he  deeds  of  the  law  there  shall  no 
flesh  be  justified  iu  his  sight:  for  by  the  law  in  the 
knowledge  of  sin 


saith,  it  speaketh  to  them  that  are  under  the  law; 
that  everv  mouth  may  be  stopi  eJ,  and  all  the  world 
20  mav  be  brought  under  the  judgment  of  God :  because 
1  by  2  the  works  of  the  law  shall  no  tiesh  be  sjusti- 
fied  in  his  sight:  fur  < through  the  law  comet/i  the 
knowledge  of  sin. 


1  Gr.out  0/ 2  Or,  toorkt  of  late S  Or,  accounted  Hghtemu 4  Or.  through  law. 


name  law  from  this,  their  more  important 
part.  Besides,  the  entire  Scriptures,  as  Heng- 
stenberg  remarks,  have  a  normal,  or  regu- 
lative character.  The  reference  to  the  law 
here  is  apparently  for  the  purpose  of  sht)wing 
to  the  Jews  that  they,  as  well  as  the  Gentiles, 
are  undersin*.  "How  this  solemnly  emphatic 
'whatsoever'  heaps  upon  the  Jews  the  divine 
sentence  of  '  guilty,'  and  cuts  off  from  them 
every  refuge,  as  if  this  or  that  declaration  did 
not  apply  to,  or  concern  them  !  "  (Meyer.)] 
It  saith  to  them  who  are  under  the  law. 
It  speaks  would  be  more  exact.  The  two 
verbs  [Aey^J'  and  AaAeli-,  see  AaAio,  Matt.  2t):  73], 
"to  .say"  and  "to  speak,"  are  generally  dis- 
tinguished in  translation,  and  should  be 
always.  Whatever  the  law  says,  it  is  speak- 
ing [utters  its  voice]  to  them  who  are  under 
the  law;  they  are  certflinly  and  most  directly 
addressed,  though  not  always  exclusively.  In 
the  law  \vo\\\6.  be  a  more  literal  translation: 
in  it  as  their  sphere  of  life.  [Compare  2:  12.] 
That  every  mouth  may  be  stopped.  Com- 
pare this  clause  with  ver.  9.  [For  the  figure 
of  stopping  one's  mouth,  here,  literally:  that 
every  mouth  may  be  hedged,  see  Job  5:  16; 
Ps.  107:  42.]  The  conclusion  seems,  to  a 
superficial  view,  broader  than  the  premises; 
for  the  immediate  context  relates  to  the  Jews 
alone.  "But  the  argument  holds  good  ;  for  the 
case  of  the  Gentiles,  before  shown  to  be  guilty, 
is  now  taken  in,  agreeably  to  what  is  said  in 
ver.  9;  and  so  all  the  world  becomes  guilty 
before  God.]  May  become  accountable  to 
Ood.  (Gifford.)  'The  word  "guilty,"  or 
"subject  to  the  judgment  of  God,"  as  in  the 
marginal  reading  of  the  Common  Version, 
occurs  only  here.  Sin  and  redemption  alike 
put  us  all  on  a  level  before  God.] 

20.  Thereforeby  deeds  of  the  law  there 
shall  no  flesh  be  justified  in  his  sight. 
Because  would  be  the  more  exact  translation 
of  the  first  word.'  The  apostle  regards  the 
more  general  conclusion  arrived  at  here  as 
necessitating  what    he  had    said   in   ver.   19 


['that  every  mouth  may  be  stopped,'  etc.] 
not,  as  'therefore'  would  imply,  as  a  conclu- 
sion from  that  verse.  Not  by  the  deeds  of  the 
Jewish  law,  but  by  works  of  laio,  in  the  broad- 
est sense— broad  enough  to  cover  the  conclu- 
sion, all  the  world.  For  an  explanation  of 
the  meaning  of  the  verb,  to  be  justified,  see 
the  notes  on  1 :  17.  [Paul's  language  here  is 
similar  to  that  in  Ps.  143:  2:  "Enter  not 
into  judgment  with  thy  servant,  for  in  thy 
sight  shall  no  man  living  be  justified."  The 
apostle  adds,  'by  the  deeds  of  the  law,'  and 
substitutes  for  livi7tg  the  word  'flesh,'  as  de- 
noting men  in  their  weakness  and  sin.  The 
same  assertion  is  found  in  Gal.  2  :  16.  On  the 
import  of  the  term  'justified,'  Dr.  Hodge 
thus  remarks:  "It  would  bo  utterly  unmean- 
ing to  say  that  'no  flesh  shall  he  pardoned  by 
the  works  of  the  law,'  or  that  'no  man  shall 
be  sanctified  by  the  deeds  of  the  law.'  "  The 
construction  is  Hebraistic,  the  literal  rendering 
being,  'not  shall  be  justified  every  flesh.'  By 
this  idiom,  non-justification  is  predicated  of 
every,  or  all  flesh;  or,  as  we  should  say,  no 
flesh  or  no  man  will  be  justified.  In  our 
idiom,  the  idea  implied  would  be  that  some 
flesh,  or  some  men,  would  be  justified  by 
legal  works.  The  'deeds  (or  works)  of  the 
law,'  have  no  reference  to  the  ceremonial,  as 
distinguished  from  the  moral  law;  for  the 
Scriptures  make  no  sharp  distinction  of  this 
kind— such  distinction  being  what  may  be 
termed  an  "afterthought  of  theology."  Be- 
sides, these  works  here  are  used  in  contrast, 
not  with  other  works,  but  with  faith.  It 
refers  rather  to  the  moral  law  ;  for  the  apos- 
tle immediately  adds  that  by  the  law  is 
the  knoAVledge  of  sin.  And  in  7:  7  he 
avers  that  he  "had  not  known  sin  except 
through  the  law"  (Revised  Version);  "had 
not  known  coveting,  except  the  (moral)  law  — 
the  tenth  commandment— had  said.  Thou  shalt 
not  covet."  But  do  these  works  of  law  em- 
brace in  this  connection  what  are  elsewhere 
styled    good    works,     and     excellent    works 


»"ai6Tiopcurs  twenty-two  times  in  the  New  Testament,  and   is  everywhere  causal,  unless  we  give  it  an 
illative  meaning  here.'" — Boise.— XF.) 


90 


ROMANS. 


[Cn.  III. 


(epyifra  ayo-Bi,  KaKd,  2 :  7 ;  2  CoT.  9:8;  Eph.  2 :  10 ; 
Col.  1:  10;  Titus  2:  7,  14;  3:  8, 14),  or  "works 
of  grace"  ?  The  law,  indeed,  does  not  pro- 
duce these  good  works  ;  but  are  they  not  such 
as  the  hiw  requires?  If  '  works  of  law  '  are 
taken  in  this  last  sense,  then  it  would  follow 
that  we  cannot  be  justified  even  by,  on  account 
of,  our  good  works.  And  this  is  the  invariable 
teaching  of  the  Scriptures.  Nowhere  is  it 
said  that  we  are  justified  and  saved  on  the 
ground  of  works,  or  of  faith  even,  but  we 
are  justified  gratuitously,  by  grace,  through 
faith,  through  Christ,  and  in  his  blood. 
A  salvation  which  is  gratuitous,  and  by 
grace  is  not  a  salvation  on  the  ground 
of  works,  whether  '  works  of  law,'  or  'works' 
generally,  or  'works  of  righteousness' ;  and 
so  it  excludes  all    "boasting."     (s:  24, 27, as;  ii: 

6;  Eph.  2:  8,  9;  2Tim.  1  :  9;  Titus3:  5,  7.)  The  Chris- 
tian's "good  works"  are  poor  and  imperfect, 
his  tears  of  penitence,  even,  leaving  a  stain. 
They  will  not  stand  the  test  of  the  judgment 
for  a  moment.  They  all  need  washing  in 
atoning  blood.  We  therefore  adopt  the  view 
which  Philippi,  in  a  lengthj'  discussion,  ad- 
vocates, in  the  third  (not  the  first  or  second) 
edition  of  his  commentary,  that  works  of  law 
are  all  works  required  by  God's  law,  and  in 
harmony  with  it,  which,  whether  they  are 
merely  outward  works  of  the  unregenerate, 
or  trulj"  good  works  of  the  regenerate,  do  not 
justify  before  God,  because  they  are  a  conse- 
quent of  justification,  and  not  a  constituent 
element  of  it,  and  because  in  no  case  are  they 
a  perfect  fulfillment  of  the  law.  'Shall  be 
justified.'  "The  future  here  is  ethical — that 
is,  it  indicates  not  so  much  mere  futurity 
as  moral  possibility,  and  with  not  (ov),  in 
not  any  flesh,  something  that  neither  can, 
nor  will  ever  happen."  (Ellicotton  Gal.  2: 
16.)  Winer,  on  this  clause,  says:  "This  is  a 
rule  which  will  hold  true  in  the  world." 
Some,  however,  refer  the  future  tense  of  the 
verb  to  "the  judgment  of  the  great  day."] 
For  through  law  is  knowledge  of  sin. 
["The  law  brings  only  the  knowledge  of 
sin"  (De  Wette),  and  of  course  its  works 
cannot  bring  justification  to  the  guilty.  "Life 
and  death  proceed  not  from  the  same  foun- 
tain." (Calvin.)  The  word  for  knowledge 
is  a  compound,  and  signifies  full  knowledge, 
clear  discernment  or  realization.  Seel:  28; 
10:  2.     Watts  very  truly  says : 


In  vain  we  ask  God's  righteous  law 

To  justify  us  now, 
Since  to  convince  and  to  condemn 

Is  all  the  law  can  do. 

Further  on  we  shall  see  that  the  law,  by  virtue 
of  its  condemnatory  and  prohibitory  nature, 
occasions  the  calling  forth  of  the  passions  of 
sin  and  the  abounding  of  trespasses  and  thus 
the  working  out  of  wrath.  (7:5;  5:20;  4:  15.)] 
This  is  a  very  comprehensive  declaration. 
The  very  idea  of  sin  comes  from  the  previous 
idea  of  law,  as  a  rule  of  action,  of  which  sin 
is  a  violation  ;  all  true  knowledge  of  the 
nature  of  sin  comes  through  the  precept  of 
the  law  :  all  correct  estimate  of  the  evil  of 
sin  comes  through  the  penalty  of  the  law: 
all  just  sense  of  personal  sinfulness  comes 
through  the  application  of  the  law. 

In  this  passage,  (ver.  9-20,)  the  apostle  aims  a 
death  blow  at  all  the  self-righteousness  and 
self-complacency  of  sinful  men.  He  proves, 
by  divine  testimonies,  the  universal  depravity 
of  human  nature.  He  shows  the  corruption 
of  our  nature,  in  its  trunk  and  in  its  root.  He 
proves  the  impossibility  of  justification  by 
works.  He  virtually  asserts  that  to  be  justi- 
fied by  our  works  is  neither  more  nor  less 
than  to  be  justified  by  our  sins:  for  all  the 
acts  of  a  man,  prior  to  his  being  justified 
freely  by  grace  through  faith,  are  compre- 
hended in  these  two  classes — acts  of  disobedi- 
ence to  the  law  of  God,  and  acts  of  imperfect 
obedience.  The  first  are  positive  sins,  the 
last  are  sins  by  defect — that  is,  they  are  sins, 
by  as  much  as  they  fall  short  of  perfect  obedi- 
ence. By  which  set  of  performances,  then, 
is  he  to  be  justified?  Not  certainly  by  his 
positive  transgressions,  for  these  are  the  very 
deeds  for  which  he  is  justly  condemned.  Can 
he  be  justified  any  more  by  his  imperfect 
obedience — that  is,  by  his  sins  of  defect?  This 
would  be  to  suppose  them  no  longer  sins. 
Nay,  we  may  go  further,  and  say  this  would 
be  to  suppose  an  actual  merit  in  his  lesser  sins 
sufficient  to  atone  for  the  demerit  of  his 
greater  sins.  To  such  absurdities  does  the 
idea  of  justification  by  works  lead.  The 
whole  question  is  closed  forever  by  this  di- 
vine sentence — "  cursed  is  every  one  that  con- 
tinueth  not  in  all  thiyigs  which  are  written  in 
the  book  of  the  law,  to  do  them."     (Gai.  3:  10.) 

21.  The  apostle  has  hitherto  been  showing 
the   need  of  that   "righteousness  of  God," 


Ch.  III.] 


ROMANS. 


91 


21  But  now  the  righteousness  of  God  without  the 
law  is  manifested,  being  witnessed  by  the  law  and  the 
prophets ; 


21  But  DOW  apart  from  the  law  a  righteousness  of  (iod 
hath  been  manifested,  being  witnessed  by  the  law 


which  was  indispensable,  and  yet  unattainable 
bj'  the  law.  He  now  begins  a  new  division 
of  his  subject,  the  object  of  which  is  to  show 
how  that  indispensable  righteousness  can  be 
attained.  [Under  the  general  head  of  justifi- 
cation and  its  results  (3:21-5:21)  Beet  gives  this 
analysis:  "Justification  through  faith  and 
through  Christ  (3: 21-26);  by  which  all  boasting 
is  shut  out  (3:27-30);  but,  as  the  case  of  Abra- 
ham proves,  the  law  is  established  (3: 31-4:17)  ; 
description  of  Abraham's  faith  (4:18-25);  we 
have  now  a  well-grounded  hope(5:i-H);  and 
the  curse  of  Adam  is  reversed  (5:i.'-i9);  the 
law  was  given  to  prepare  for  this  (5:20-21)." 
We  have  now  come  to  a  section  which  Farrar 
says  contains  the  ver3'  quintessence  of  Pauline 
theology,  "and  is  one  of  the  fullest  and 
weightiest  passages  in  all  his  writings."  Its 
ver3'  words  seem  freighted  with  thought  of 
highest  moment.  In  these  modern  times  men 
may  not  feel  much  interest  in  a  discussion 
about  law,  faith,  justification,  etc.;  but  these 
with  the  apostle  were  matters  of  gospel  or  no 
gospel,  of  life  or  death,  of  salvation  or  perdi- 
tion. What  an  almost  infinite  solemnity  of 
meaning  there  is  in  his  words  addressed  to  the 
Galatians:  "I  do  not  set  aside  the  grace  of 
God:  for  if  there  be  righteousness  through 
law,  then  Christ  died  without  cause" — died 
for  nothing.  (Gal.  2:21;  Bible  Union  Ver- 
sion.) And  with  what  j^earnings  of  heart  he 
regarded  these  same  Galatians  as  they  were 
severing  themselves  from  Christ  and  falling 
away  from  his  grace.  With  similar  feelings, 
perhaps,  he  has  now  taken  a  survey  of  the 
Gentile  and  Jewish  world  and  sees  them  all 
alienated  from  the  life  of  God,  all  under  the 
power  of  sin,  all  exposed  to  God's  judgment. 
And  now  to  the  Gentiles  who  are  yet  not  so 
far  lost  in  sin  but  that  they  clearly  recognize 
God's  just  sentence  and  their  desert  of  death, 
and  to  the  Jews  who  may  perchance  have 
been  brought  by  the  law  to  the  full  knowledge 
of  their  sins,  Paul  proceeds  to  make  known  a 
righteousness  of  God  which  will  be  theirs 
through  faith,  and  a  way  of  justification 
through  the  redemption  of  Christ  which  will 
secure  to  them  the  life  eternal.     But  how  can 


we  rightly  understand  or  fitly  explain  those 
things  into  which  angels  desire  to  look?] 
But  now  the  righteousness  of  God,  etc. 

[Luther  thus  renders:  "  But  now  is  revealed, 
without  the  assistance  of  the  law,  the  right- 
eousness which  avails  beft)re  God."]  Now 
(j-vvi)  is  used  here,  not  probably  as  an  adverb 
of  time  [as  it  would  be  in  classic  Greek],  but 
rather  in  a  logical  way,  "as  the  case  now 
stands"— that  is,  the  attainment  of  righteous- 
ness by  law  being  plainly  out  of  the  question. 1 
Yet  it  is  also  true  in  a  temporal  sense,  since 
this  new  way  of  righteousness  is  now  for  the 
first  time  fully  revealed,  so  that  there  is  a 
coincidence  of  the  two  senses  in  which  this 
adverb  is  used ;  but  the  sense  above  explained 
is  the  predominant  one,  that  of  time  is  subor- 
dinate. See  a  similar  use  of  the  adverb  now 
in  7: 17;  1  Cor.  15:20;  Heb.  8:6,  etc.  'With- 
out the  law.  Apart  from  law  [or,  without 
its  co-operation.  (DeWette.)  And,  accord- 
ing to  this  author,  the  antithesis  of  this  would 
be:  "Through  the  facts  of  the  new  revela- 
tion" has  God's  righteousness  been  mani- 
fested.-] These  words  are  made  emphatic  in 
the  original  by  their  occupying  the  first  place 
in  the  sentence.  Some  regard  them  as  quali- 
fying the  phrase,  'righteousness  of  God'; 
others  as  qualifying  the  verb,  'is  manifested.' 
The  sense  is  not  materially  different,  but  the 
position  of  the  words  in  the  original  would 
rather  suggest  that  they  are  not  to  be  exclu- 
sively connected  with  either.  This  whole 
matter  (the  righteousness  itself  and  its  mani- 
festation) is  out  of  the  sphere  of  law,  utterly' 
excludes  all  merit  of  works.  The  expression 
is  manifested,  or,  more  exactly,  has  been 
inanifested — the  present  of  completed  action 
(Meyer) — rather  than  "is  revealed"  (i:"),is 
eminently  suitable  here.  It  is  no  new  thing, 
so  far  as  God  is  concerned,  nor  yet  wholly 
new  to  man,  as  the  following  words  imph', 
but  newly  'manifested,'  with  an  emphasis 
upon  that  word.  ["  Having  previously  been 
hidden  in  God's  counsels,  it  has  now  been 
made  manifest  in  historical  reality,  in  the 
person  of  Jesus  Christ.  .  .  .  The  manifesta- 
tion, in  fact,  is  complete;   the  revelation   in 


1  In  this  sense  the  Greek  writers  would  use  vvv. — (F.)  I  room)  conveys  more  than  avtv,  the  idea  of  separateness. 
»  The  word  for  without  (x<"P'«i  akin  to  xuipa-,  place  or  '  — (F.) 


92 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  III. 


22  Even  the  righteousness  of  God  ichinh  is  by  faith 
of  Jesus  Christ  uulo  all  and  upon  all  them  that  believe; 
for  there  is  no  diflerence  : 


22  and  the  prophets;  even  the  righteousness  of  God 
through  faith  1  in  Jesus  Christ  unto  all  ^theiu  that 

23  believe;  for  there  is  no  distinction;  fur  all  ^have 


1  Or,  0/ 2  Some  ancient  authorities  ad<l  and  upon  all 3  6r.  sinned. 


the  gospel  Still  goes  on."  (Gittord.)]  Being 
witnessed  by  the  law  and  the  prophets. 

By  the  law,  as  in  Gen.  49:10;  Deut.  18:15, 
etc.  By  the  prophets,  as  in  Isa.  53;  Jer.  23: 
6,  etc.    [The  phrase  'the  law  and  the  prophets' 

is    of    frequent   occurrence   (Matt.d:  17;  7:12;  22:40; 

Acts 28: 23),  and  denotes  in  general  the  Old  Test- 
ament S:riptures.  Tlie  gospel  of  gratuitous 
justification  is  shown  by  this  reference  to  the 
Old  Testament  to  be  not  an  invention  of  Paul.] 
The  present  participle  indicates  a  continuous, 
permanent  manifestation  in  the  abiding 
{Scriptures.     Compare  1  :  2. 

22.  Even  the  righteousness  of  God,  etc. 
[The  word  for  'even'  (6e)  has  generally  a 
slightly  oppositive  force,  and  here,  perhaps, 
introduces  a  contrast  to  the  law  of  the  last 
verse.  Thus,  though  this  righteousness  is 
witnessed  by  the  law,  it  is  not  gained  by 
means  of  the  law  or  by  means  of  works,  but 
by  means  of  faith  of  (in)  Jesus  Christ.]  Ob- 
serve with  what  painstaking  fullness  the 
apostle  shows  us  that  this  righteousness  of 
God  is  conditioned  on  taith.  ["Faith  is  at 
once  the  soul's  highest  exercise  of  freedom, 
its  lowliest  'confession  of  sin,'  and  the  only 
homage  it  can  render  to  God."  (Gifford.)] 
He  repeats  the  expression  'the  righteousness 
of  God'  in  order  to  bring  in  this  explanation, 
by  faith,  or  through  faith,  of  Jesus  Christ, 
and  then  subjoins:  [Which  is]  unto  all  them 
that  believe.  [A  still  fuller  form  which  the 
apostle  sometimes  uses  (as  in  ver.  24:  Epli. 
2:8)  would  be:  "The  righteousness  of  God 
which  is  by  grace  through  faith,"  etc.,  grace 
being  the  objective,  instrumental  cause  of 
salvation,  faith  the  subjective  medium,  by 
which  it  is  received — grace  imparting,  faith 
receiving.  See  EUicott  on  Eph.  2:8.  Since 
'righteousness'  has  no  article  in  the  original, 
the  feminine  article  after  the  word  'God'  is 
naturally  dispensed  with.     Its  omission   also 


here  and  in  similar  cases  gives  a  more  com- 
plete unity  to  the  conception.  (Winer,  135.) 
On  'righteousness  of  God,'  see  comments  on 
1:17.  The  meaning  of  this 'righteousness' 
(iiicaioCT-ui'T))  is  indicated  by  the  "being  justified 
freely  by  his  grace,"  etc.  (ver. 24.)  "This 
righteousness,"  says  Godet,  "is  granted  to 
faith,  not  assuredly  because  of  any  merit 
inherent  in  it,  for  this  would  be  to  fall  back 
on  jvorks — the  very  thing  which  the  New 
Dispensation  wishes  to  exclude — but  because 
of  the  object  of  faitli.  Therefore  it  is  that  this 
object  is  expressly  mentioned — Jesus  Christ." 
"The  person  of  Christ  in  its  unity  and  totality 
('Jesus  Christ')  is  the  proper  redemptive 
object  of  faith."  (Dorner.)]  The  difference 
between  the  expressions  unto  all  and  upon 
all  is  commonly  thus  explained  :  Offered 
'unto  all,'  and  actually  available  to,  or  resting 
upon  all  them  that  believe.  According  to 
this  explanation,  'all  them  that  believe'  is  to 
be  connected  with  the  latter  preposition, 
'upon,'  only,  and  not  with  the  former,  'unto.' 
This  would  be  tolerably  satisfactory  if  the 
reading  of  the  original  were  certainly  genu- 
ine; but  though  defended  by  Meyer,  the 
words  'and  upon  all'  are  rejected,  or  marked 
as  doubtful,  by  most  recent  critics.^  This,  of 
course,  forestalls  all  need  of  the  above  ex- 
planation and  leaves  no  place  for  it.  For 
there  is  no  difference.  There  is  no  distinc- 
tion of  Jew  and  Gentile,  or  of  any  other  kind, 
among  men,  as  to  the  need  of  justification  or 
the  way  to  be  justified.  Whatever  difierence 
there  may  be  as  to  the  degree  of  sinfulness 
and  blameworthiness,  all  are  under  the  same 
condemnation  by  the  law,  and  shut  up  to  the 
same  only  hope  of  justification  by  the  gospel. 
The  Pharisee  and  the  publican,  the  openly 
vicious  and  the  comparatively  moral,  are 
alike  lost  if  they  look  to  the  law,  and  mtiy  be 
alike  saved  if  they  look  to  Christ  in   faith. 


1  The  addition  of  the  second  clause  is  designated  by 
Westcott  and  Hort  as  "Western  and  Syrian"  (their 
"Syrian"  being  nearly  equivalent  to  Constantinopoli- 
tan,  or  the  text  of  Chrysostom,  a  native  and,  for  sev- 
eral years,  a  preacher  of  Antioch,  in  Syria,  and,  to  my 
mind,  one  very  good  authority),  and  is  regarded  by 
them  as  one  of  those  "conflate"  or  combined  and, 
hence,  fuller  readings  which  are  characteristic  of  our 


Textus  Receptus,  and  which  are  generally  discarded  in 
their  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament,  as  also  in  the 
Revised  Version.  Meyer  retains  the  second  clause  and 
would  connect  believing  with  each  "  all."  Prof.  Jowett 
says  that,  "Of  the  two  prepositions,  eis  represents  the 
more  internal  and  spiritual  relation  of  the  gospel  to  the 
individual  soul,  as  ejri,  its  outward  connection,  with 
mankind  collectively." — (F.) 


Ch.  III.] 


ROMANS. 


93 


23  For  all  have  sinued,  aud  come  short  of  the  glory 
of  God ;  ,  ,    ., 

24  Being  justified  freely  by  his  grace  through  the 
redemptiou  that  is  iu  Christ  Jesus: 


24  sinned,  aud  fall  short  of  the  glory  of  God;   being 
justified  Ireely  by  bis  grace  througli  the  redeaipiiou 

25  that  is  iu  Christ  Jesus:  whom  Cod  set  forth  ^  to  be 


1  Or,  to  be  propitiatory. 


This  is  a  hard  saying  to  the  self-righteous; 
but  it  is  just  as  certainly  true  as  that  "there 
is  none  other  name  under  heaven  given  among 
men  whereby  we  must  be  saved."'  (aci34:12.) 
"If  you  do  not  regard  yourself  as  wholly  un- 
done under  the  law,  you  will  keep  out  from 
your  mind  the  whole  clearness  and  comfort 
of  the  gospel.  '     (Chalmers.) 

23.  For  all  have  sinned,  and  come 
short— or, /((//  s/torif  (Revised  Version)— of 
the  glory  of  God.  There  is  a  seeming  inac- 
curacy here  in  the  tense  of  the  second  verb. 
It  appears  to  be  in  the  j^erfect  tense,  like  the 
first  verb,  but  is  really  in  the  present.  There 
is  no  reason  for  supposing  that  the  translators 
intended  to  mislead  the  English  reader;  the 
translation  is  not  incorrect,  though  almost 
invariably  misunderstood.  The  misunder- 
.standing  would  have  been  effectually  pre- 
vented had  they  inserted  the  auxiliary  do 
before  the  second  verb:  All  have  iiitmed,  and 
do  come  short  of  the  glory  of  God  is  the  pre- 
cise form  in  which  the  apostle  states  the  case, 
at  least  so  far  as  the  tense  of  the  second  verb 
is  concerned.^  The  verb  'sinned'  would  be 
quite  as  accurately  rendered  without  the 
'  have,'  as  referring  to  an  indefinite  past  act. 
According  to  the  most  common  use  of  the 
Greek  tense  here  employed,  the  sins  of  man- 
kind are  here  represented  as  "gathered  into 
one  act,  regarded  as  prior  to  the  manifestation 
of  the  righteousness."  (Websler.)  The  si«- 
ning  is  represented  as  a  fact  that  occurred  in 
past  time,  the  coming  short  of  the  glory  of 
God  as  the  present  and  abiding  consequence. 
[The  historical  aorist,  'sinned '—according  to 
Bengel,  Olshausen,  Wordsworth,  Shedd— re- 
fers, primarily  at  least,  to  the  fall  of  our  race 
in  Adam,  which  is  the  prolific  source  of  all 
depravity  and  all  sin.  See  5:  12.  Prof.  Shedd 
says:  "It  is  the  one  original  sin  of  apostasy, 
more  than  any  particular  transgressions  that 
flow  from  it,  that  puts  the  Jew  and  Gentile 
upon  the  same  footing,  so  that  there  is  '  no 
ditl'erence'  between  them."]     What  is  meant 


by  coming  short  of  the  glory  of  God?  Here 
we  have  a  great  variety  of  explanations,  some 
of  them  depending  upon  the  view  taken  of 
the  sense  of  the  verb,  and  some  upon  the 
meaning  assigned  to  the  phrase,  'the  glory  of 
God.'  As  to  the  meaning  of  the  verb,  we 
remark  that  it  does  not  mean  to  lose  some- 
thing once  possessed,  but  to  fail  of  gaining 
something  once  attainable.  This  excludes 
such  explanations  as  that  of  Olshausen,  to  lose 
"the  image  of  God  in  which  man  was  cre- 
ated." The  most  pertinent  text,  perhaps,  to 
illustrate  the  meaning  of  the  verb  here,  is 
Heb.  4:1.  As  to  the  sense  of  the  expression, 
'the  glory  of  God,'  see  the  notes  on  2:7. 
[Most  expositors,  we  think,  regard  this  phrase 
as  nearly  equivalent  to  the  praise  of  God, 
"  the  glory  that  cometh  from  the  only  God." 
(Revised  Version.  John  5:44;  12:43.)  But 
Meyer  says:  "The  glory  of  God  cannot,  in 
reality,  be  anything  essentially  diflferent  from 
the  righteousness  of  God,  and  cannot  be 
merely  future."] 

24.  Being  justified.  ["  Suddenly  thus  is 
opened  a  more  pleasant  scene."  (Bengel.)] 
This  participle  must  agree  grammatically  with 
'air  of  ver.  23.  But  are  'all'  actually  justified? 
No;  the  present  participle  here  used  does  not 
imply  that:  it  is  the  customary  form  of  stating 
a  general  truth  or  principle  without  affirming 
the  universality  of  the  fact.  It  describes,  with 
what  follows,  the  only  mode  of  justification 
in  the  case  of  all  who  are  justified  ;  the  justi- 
fication of  men  is  going  on  in  this  way  and  in 
no  other.  The  apostle  is  careful  not  to  use 
the  perfect  participle,  as  Luke  does  in  18:  14, 
or  the  indefinite  past,  as  he  himself  does  in 
5 : 1  of  this  Epistle,  where  it  would  be  more 
exactly  translated  :  "Having  been  justified." 
Either  of  these  forms  would  represent  the 
justification  as  an  accomplished  fact,  and  it 
is  justly  so  represented  in  both  the  passages 
referred  to;  but  the  present  participle  does 
not  so  represent  it,  and  in  the  passage  under 
consideration  it  could  not  be  truly  so  repre- 


1  This  verb — signifying,  literally,  to  he  behind,  hence, 
to  fall  short,  to  lack— is  properly  followed,  as  here,  by 
the  genitive,  the  "  whence  case,"  the  genitive  of  pro- 


ceeding from,  of  separation,  and  removal.  The  verb, 
being  iu  the  middle  voice,  is  supposed  by  some  to  indi- 
cate a  felt  need.    Compare  Luke  15 :  14. — (F.) 


94 

ROMANS. 

[Ch. 

III. 

25 

Whom 

God 

bath 

set 

forth 

to 

he 

a 

propitiation  |        a  propitiation 

through 

faith, 

in 

his  blood,  to 

shew 

sented.  [Winer  saj^s:  "The apostle  conceived 
the  connection  thus — and  come  short  of  the 
glory  of  God,  in  that  (since)  they  are  justified 
freely,  etc. ;  the  latter  is  proof  of  the  former." 
And  Godet  paraphrases  as  follows:  "Being 
consequently  ]\is,i\^edi,  as  we  have  just  declared 
(ver.  21,  22),  freely,  etc."]  Dr.  Schaff  has  a 
full  and  admirable  note  on  the  meaning  of 
the  verb  "to  justify  "  in  Lange's  commentary 
on  this  verse.  [On  the  verb  to  justify,  see 
notes  on  1 :  17;  also  Dr.  Hovey's  "  Manual  of 
Theology,"  p.  264,  seq. ;  and  his  "God  with 
Us,"  pp.  114,  252.  To  justify,  as  defined  by 
Prof.  Cremer,  is:  "By  a  judicial  decision  to 
free  from  guilt,  .  .  .  and  to  represent  as  right- 
eous." Almost  every  word  here  used  in  con- 
nection with  "justified"  shows  that  this  term 
does  not  mean  made  righteous  or  sanctified.] 
Freely  by  his  grace.  These  two  qualifying 
terms,  though  intimately  related,  are  not 
identical.  Tlie  first  denotes  the  entire  free- 
ness  of  justification,  "without  money  and 
without  price";  the  second,  the  divine  be- 
nignity, which  is  the  source  of  that  free  gift. 
Again,  the  second  might  be  true  without  the 
first.  It  would  be  a  favor,  an  act  of  grace,  on 
God's  part,  to  grant  to  men  justification  on 
some  easy  and  indulgent  terms,  though  not 
as  an  absolutely  free  gift.  [See  5: 17,  gift  of 
righteousness,  and  Eph.  2:8,  the  gift  of  God. 
If  it  is  without  cost  to  us,  it  was  not  so  to  the 
Giver.  The  word  translated  'freely'  {hmpeav) — 
or,  better,  gratuitously — is  found  elsewhere  in 
Matt.  10:8;  John  15:25;  2  Cor.  11:7;  Gal. 
2  :  21 ;  2  Thess.  3  :  8;  Kev.  21  :  6;  22  :  17. 
'Grace'  here  "is  emphasized  precisely  as  di- 
vine, opposed  to  all  human  co-operation." 
(Meyer.)  On  the  antithesis  of  grace  to  any 
reward  of  work  or  to  debt,  see  4  :  4;  11  :  6. 
Compare  Titus  3  :  5.  Some  persons,  chiefly 
of  the  hyper-Calvinistic  Antinomian  School, 
have  held  that  Christ,  by  his  redemption,  has 
fully  paid  the  debt  of  sinners,  so  that  they, 
if  belonging  to  the  number  of  the  elect,  are 
freed  from  desert  of  punishment,  and  can 
demand  deliverance  from  death  as  a  right, 
thus  making  crimes  transferable,  like  debts. 
But  we,  as  lost  sinners,  must  ever  seek  this 
deliverance  as  an  act  of  grace,  such  deliver- 
ance being  through  Christ's  redemption,  ren- 
dered consistent  with  justice,  but  not  required 
by  it.    (Fuller.)]   Through  the  redemption 


(aTToAuTptoCTts)  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus.  'Re- 
demption' [a  word  which  supposes  the  truth 
of  ver.  9,  that  we  are  "all  under  sin"  or  in 
bondage  to  sin]  is  deliverance  effected  by 
paying  a  ransom.  Compare  1  Cor.  1  :  30.  See 
also  Eph.  1:7;  Col.  1 :  14,  in  both  which  places 
redemption  is  defined  as  "the  forgiveness  of 
sins,"  and  in  the  former  with  the  addition, 
"through  his  blood."  (In  the  latter  passage 
this  qualification  is  omitted  in  the  best  editions 
of  the  original  text.)  Compare  also  the  word 
"ransom"  (Kvrpov)  in  Matt.  20:28;  Murk  10: 
45;  (avTiXvTpov)  1  Tim.  2:6;  and  the  noun 
"redemption"  (Aiirpwais)  in  Heb.  9:12;  and 
the  verb  "to  redeem  "  in  Titus  2: 14;  1  Peter 
1 :  18.  [See  also  such  kindred  words  as  bought, 
purchased,  etc.,  1  Cor.  6:20;  7:23;  Gal.  3 : 
13  ;  Rev.  5:9;  also  Acts  20  :  28.  The  pur- 
chase price  paid,  we  may  say,  to  the  holiness 
of  the  infinitely  holy  and  righteous  Lawgiver 
and  Judge  was  the  "precious  blood"  of  Jesus. 
See  ver.  25 ;  Eph.  1:7;  1  Peter  1 :  18,  19 ;  2  : 
24;  Rev.  5:9.  Compare  Matt.  20:  28;  1  Tim. 
2:6.  This  'redemption,'  which  is  in  or  rests 
in  Christ,  is  to  be  considered  as  the  objective, 
and  faith  as  the  subjective,  medium  of  justifi- 
cation. (Philippi.)  The  redemption  is  from 
the  curse,  from  sin,  from  death,  and  from 
Satan.  "Every  mode  of  conception  which 
refers  redemption  and  forgiveness  of  sins,  not 
to  a  real  atonement  through  the  death  of 
Christ,  but,  subjectively,  to  the  dying  and 
reviving  with  him,  guaranteed  and  produced 
by  that  death,  ....  is  opposed  to  the  New 
Testament,  a  mixing  up  of  justification  and 
sanctification."  (Meyer.)  "  Here  is  a  foun- 
dation for  the  satisfaction  theory  of  Anselm, 
but  not  for  its  grossly  anthropopathic  execu- 
tion." (De  Wette.)]  The  two  verses  follow- 
ing explain  how  this  redemption  was  effected. 
25.  Whom  God  hath  set  forth.  [Middle 
voice:  set  forth  for  himself,  for  the  exhibi- 
tion or  demonstration  of  his  righteousness. 
(Winer,  p.  254.)  Godet  remarks  that  "it 
is  God  himself  who,  according  to  this 
passage,  is  to  be  regarded  as  the  author  of  the 
whole  work  of  redemption.  The  salvation  of 
the  world  is  not  therefore  wrested  from  him,  as 
is  sometimes  represented  bj'  the  mediation  of 
Christ."  Compare  1  John  4:  10:  2  Cor.  5 : 
18;  John  3:  16.]  God  set  Christ  forth,  or 
exhibited  him  to  men  histoiically  by  his  in- 


Ch  III.] 


ROMANS. 


95 


through  faith  iu  his  blood,  to  declare  his  righteousness  |       his  righteousness,  because  of  the  passing  over  of  the 


carnation.     Compare  Gal.   4:  4.*    God   (the 

Father)  set  forth  for  himself  and  before  the 
world  or  universe,  Christ  Jesus  the  crucified, 
slain  as  a  sacrifice  for  sins.     To  be  a  jiro- 
pitiatioii.    Tiie  words  'to  be'  are  supplied 
by  the  English  translators:  they  add  nothing 
tothesense.    The  word  'propitiation'    (iAao-TTj- 
piov)  is  in  form  a  verbal  adjective,  signifying 
prop  it  id  tor  y,  and  implying  some  such  word 
as    sacrifice,    or    offering,    understood,    with 
which  it  agrees.     In  the  only  other  two  cases 
where  the  word  'propitiation'  is  used  in  our 
English  Bible,  1  John  2:  2;  4:  10,  the  Greek 
word  (iAao-fudt)  is  a  noun  from  the  same  root  as 
the  verbal  adjective  used  here;  and  in  both 
the  above  passages  it  is  applied  to  Christ.    The 
only  defensible  translation  of  the  word  here  is 
'propitiation'  or  'propitiatory  sacrifice.'    The 
representation  of  Christ  as  an  expiatory  sacri- 
fice for  sin  pervades  the  New  Testament.    He 
is  said  to  have  "given  himself  as  an  otfering 
and  a  sacrifice,"  Eph.  5:  2,  compare  Heb.  10: 
12;  he  is  "our  Passover,  sacrificed  for  us,"  1 
Cor.  5:7;  he  is  "Lamb  of  God,"  John  1:  29, 
36;  1  Peter  1:  19;  Rev.  5:  6-9.    This  last  title 
of  Lamb  is  given  to  him  nearly  thirty  times 
in  the  book  of  Revelation  alone.     [  The  word 
propitiation'    here  denotes  that  which  pro- 
pitiates God  or  his  justice.     See  Dr.  Hovey's 
"Manual   of   Theolo^',"   210,  seq,,  also  his 
"God  with  Us,"  114,  seq.,  252,  seq.     Godet, 
speaking  against  the  false  idea  that  propitia- 
tion is  intended  to  originate  a  sentiment  which 
did  not  exist  in  God  before,  saj's:    "  What  it 
produces  is  such  a  change  in  the  relation  be- 
tween  God   and   the  creature,  that  God  can 
henceforth   display   toward    sinful    man   one 
of   the   elements  of  his   nature   rather  than 
another."     And  he  approvingly  quotes  Gess 
as  saying:   "Divine  love  manifests  itself  in 
the  gift  of  the  Son,  that  it  may  be  able  after- 
ward to  diffuse  itself  in  the  heart  by  the  gift 
of  the  Spirit."     In  the  love  of  God  there  is,  as 
he  says:    "(1),  The  love  which  precedes  the 
propitiation  and  which  determines  to  effect  it; 
and  (2),  Love  such  that  it  can  display  itself 
when    once    the    propitiation    is    effected."] 
Through  faith  in  his  blood.     The  precise 


connection  of  these  two  clauses  with  each 
other,  and  with  the  preceding  context,  especi- 
ally with  the  words  'propitiation'  and  'set 
forth,'  has  given  rise  to  some  discussion.  Ac- 
cording to  the  common  puncluatii)n  of  the 
English,  the  two  expressions  would  seem  to 
have  the  most  direct  and  intimate  connection 
with  each  other,  'in  his  blood'  being  the  ob- 
ject on  which  faith  is  exercised.  In  that  case, 
we  must  understand  by  his  blood  that  ex- 
piation for  sin  which  he  effected  by  the  shed- 
ding of  his  blood.  In  no  other  sense  can 
'faith  in  his  blood'  be  an  efficacious  means 
of  propitiation  for  sin.  But  the  lack  of  any 
Scripture  warrant  for  the  expression  'faith 
in  the  blood  of  Christ'  is  a  strong  objection  to 
insisting  on  so  close  a  relation  between  these 
two  clauses.  It  is  better  to  connect  the  clause 
'in  his  blood'  with  the  verb  'set  forth,'  and 
the  clause  '  through  faith  '  with  the  noun  '  pro- 
pitiation'— whom  God  set  forth  in  his  blood, 
as  a  propitiation  through  faith  [so  Meyer]  ; 
or,  which  is  but  slightly  different  without  so 
distinctly  separating  the  verb  and  the  noun, 
'propitiation,'  to  join  these  two  clauses  with 
both,  making  the  'blood' — that  is,  the  sacrifi- 
cial death  of  Christ — the  ground  of  the  propiti- 
atory virtue  of  his  redemptive  work  and  faith, 
exercised  by  the  sinner,  the  condition  of  its 
propitiatory  efficacy.  To  declare  his  right- 
eousness, etc.  Here  it  is  necessary  to  make 
more  important  changes  than  are  often  re- 
quired in  our  English  translation,  so  excellent 
as  a  whole.  '"To  declare  his  righteousness," 
literally,  'for  manifestation^  of  his  righteous- 
ness,'— that  is,  his  judiciiil  righteousness,  or 
justice,  as  explained  in  the  last  part  of  the 
next  verse.  [This  retributive  righteousness 
or  justice  of  God  (defined  by  the  phrase  in 
the  next  verse:  that  he  might  be  righteous, 
or  just)  is  of  course  different  from  that  right- 
eousness of  God  through  faith  which  lias  been 
manifested  without  the  law. 

Ver.  21  speaks  of  the  manifestation  of  God's 
justifying  righteousness,  this  verse  speaks  of 
the  exhibition  of  his  judicial  righteousness. 
The  reason  for  this  exhibition  is  given  under 
two  aspects,  the  first  stated  being,  perhsips,  the 


1  [This  is  true  ;  but  there  seems  to  be  no  reference  to 
the  incarnation  in  this  verse.  It  is  Christ  Jesus  whom 
God  is  here  afhrmed  to  have  set  forth  as  a  propitiation 
in  his  blood,  or  death,  and  not  the  eternal  Word  whom 


he  exhibited  to  men  by  means  of  the  incarnation.— 
[A.  H.] 

-  eVSeif  IV,  whence  our  indication,  see  Eph.  2 :  7,  for  an 
equivalent  phrase.— (F.) 


96 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  III. 


for  the  remission  of  sins  that  are  past,  through  the  I  26  sins  done  aforetime,  in  the  forbearance  of  God;  for 
forbearance  of  God  ;  the  shewing,  /  say,  of   his  righteousness  at    this 

2()  To  declare,  I  say,  at  this  time  his  righteousness :  | 


more  subordinate  one.]    For  the  remission. 

The  word  (a<|)eo-ts)  usually  translated  '  remission' 
(or,  in  several  places,  forgiveness,)  occurs 
seventeen  times  in  the  New  Testament,  but  it 
is  not  used  in  this  place.  Instead  of  the  ordi- 
nary word  (a<^e(7is),  the  apostle  uses  another 
word  (TTopcCTis)  which  is  found  nowhere  else  in 
the  Greek  Testament,  and  which  bears  the 
same  relation  to  the  usual  word  that  our  word 
praetermission,  or  passing  over,  bears  to  remis- 
sion. We  can  hardly  suppose  that  he  would 
have  used  a  different  word  only  here,  unle-ss 
he  had  designed  to  express  a  different  sense. 
[Sins  that  are  past,  or  formerly  committed 
— tlnit  is,  prior  to  the  atoning  death  of  Christ.]  ^ 
Through  (literally-,  in)  the  forbearance  of 
God.  This  word  'forbearance'  confirms  the 
correction  just  made  in  the  word  'remission.' 
To  pass  over  sin  is  the  work  of  'forbearance' ; 
to  remit  sin  is  the  work  of  grace.  We  would 
translate  and  explain  the  latter  part  of  this 
verse  as  follows:  "For  manifestation  of  his 
righteousness  on  account  of  (or  in  respect  to) 
the  pa.^sing  over  of  past  sins,  in  the  forbear- 
ance of  God."  During  the  past  ages,  God 
had  not  executed  the  judgment  upon  the  sins 
of  men  which  his  righteousness  had  threat- 
ened, and  seemed  to  demand ;  but  had  in 
his  forbearance  passed  over,  and  seemingly 
ignored  them.  This  made  necessary  some 
manifestation  of  his  righteousness  in  this  re- 
spect. (How  could  he  righteousl3'  so  pass  by 
the  sins  of  men  ?  The  setting  forth  of  Christ 
as  a  propitiatory  sacrifice  answers  this.)  [God 
might  have  exhibited  his  righteousness  or 
justice  by  visiting  upon  sinners  his  deserved 
wrath,  the  penalty  of  death  ;  but  this  through 
his  love  for  man  he  did  not  do.  Yet  thereby 
his  justice  seemed  to  be  set  aside  or  impaired. 


and  hence  he  "spared  not  his  own  Son  but 
gave  him  up  for  us  all."  Says  Andrew  Fuller: 
"If  the  question  were,  Why  did  God  give  his 
Son  to  die  for  sinners  rather  than  leave  them 
to  perish  in  their  sins?  the  answer  would  be, 
Because  he  loved  them.  But  if  the  question 
be,  Why  did  he  give  his  Son  to  be  an  atone- 
ment for  sinners  rather  than  save  them  with- 
out one?  the  answer  would  be.  Because  he 
loved  righteousness  and  hated  iniquity." 
Similarly  Julius  Miiller:  "To  maintain  the 
authority  of  the  divine  government  in  view 
of  innumerable  sins  left  unpunished  (Tripeo-ts), 
it  was  necessary  that  God  in  establishing  a 
new  kingdom  of  love  and  grace  should  mani- 
fest his  justice  in  the  expiatory  death  of  its 
founder  and  king."  It  is  almost  needless  to 
say  that  such  an  exhibition  as  this  of  God's 
justice  (and  of  his  mercy,  too,  in  behalf  of 
sinners),  and  such  a  setting  forth  of  Christ  as 
a  propitiatory  covering  and  sacrifice  for  the 
sins  of  men,  which  Meyer  calls  "the  epoch 
and  turning  point  in  the  world's  history," 
will  not  be  lost  and  will  never  be  repealed. 
Calvary  witnessed  the  finishing  of  man's  re- 
demption ;  and  never  again  will  Christ  be 
called  from  heaven  to  make  atonement  for 
sin.  Godetsays:  "  The  righteousness  of  God 
^)nce  revealed  in  the  sacrifice  of  the  cross,  this 
demonstration  remains.  Whatever  happens, 
nothing  can  again  efface  it  from  the  history 
of  the  world,  nor  from  the  conscience  of  man- 
kind. Henceforth  no  illusion  is  possible;  all 
sin  must  be  pardoned— or  judged."  * 

26.  To  declare,  etc. — [literally,  for  the 
manifestation  of,  as  in  the  previous  verse. 
Some  (Alford,  SchafT)  think  that  Paul  would 
by  the  use  of  the  article  in  this  and  not  in  the 
former  verse  distinguish  this  'manifestation' 


1  Prof.  Stuart  remarks  that  if  Jesus  died  only  as  a 
martyr  to  the  truth,  and  his  death  had  no  vicariovs  in- 
fluence, it  could  not  avail  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins 
(or  the  praetermission  of  sins)  committed  in  the  early 
ages— (F.) 

2  In  illustration  of  the  gracious  efficacy  of  this  verse 
we  adduce  the  religious  experience  of  the  poet  Cowper. 
Aft^r  walking  up  and  down  his  room  in  an  almost 
despairing  state  of  mind  he  at  length  seated  himself  by 
a  window  and  opened  a  Bible  which  happened  to  be 
there,  if  perchance  he  might  find  some  consolation. 
"The  passage  which  met  my  Oye  was  the  twenty-fifth 


verse  of  the  third  chapter  of  Romans.  On  reading  it 
I  immediately  received  power  to  believe.  The  rays  of 
the  Sun  of  Righteousness  fell  on  me  in  all  their  full- 
ness; I  saw  the  complete  sufficiency  of  the  expiation 
which  Christ  had  wrought  for  my  pardon  and  entire 
justification.     In  an  instant  I  believed  and  received 

the  peace  of  the  gospel If  the  arm  of  the 

Almiglity  had  not  supjiorted  me,  I  believe  I  should 
have  been  overwhelmed  witli  gratitude  and  joy.  My 
eyes  filled  with  tears,  transports  choked  my  utterance. 
I  could  only  look  to  heaven  in  silent  fear,  overflowing 
with  love  and  wonder." — (F.) 


Ch.  hi.] 


ROMANS. 


97 


that  lie  might  be  just,  and  the  justifier  of  him  which 
belijBveth  iu  Jesus. 


present  seasou:  that  he  might  himself  be  ijiist,  and 
the  ijustitier  of  him  that  ^hath   lailh  itiu  Jesus 


1  See  ch.  ii.  13,  mar.  in 2  Gr.  is  of  faith 3  Or.  of. 


from  the  other  as  being  "  the  fuller  and  ulti- 
mate object."  Mej-er  thinUs  the  former  is 
liere  resumed  and  made  prominent,  in  order 
to  emphasize  the  historical  element  (in  this 
present  time)  not  previously  mentioned,  and 
to  bring  into  full  view  the  end  that  was  designed 
by  God  ("tlint  he  might  be  just")  in  the 
pro])itiation.  In  Godet's  view,  the  "mani- 
festation" is  repeated  to  show  what  is  the 
object  to  be  gained  in  the  future.l  What  in 
the  previous  verse  was  expressed  in  a  some- 
what incidental  vva^',  and  with  reference  rather 
to  his  rigiiteousness  in  not  immediately  and 
fully  punishing  sin,  now  comes  out  more  em- 
phatically with  reference  to  his  righteousness 
in  forgiving  sin.  Note  how  emphatically  the 
apostle  declares  that  tiie  "righteousness"  of 
God  is  manifested  by  the  vicarious  sacrifice 
of  Clirist — the  very  thing  wliich  men  often 
object  to,  as  unrighteous  in  God.  At  this 
time.  These  words  are  contrasted  not  so 
much  with  the  phrase  "in  the  forbearance 
of  God,"  as  if  that  expression  referred  speci- 
ally to  the  time  of  God's  forbearance,  as  with 
the  phrase  "the  sins  that  are  past."  The 
passing  over  of  transgressions  in  times  past, 
and  the  remission  of  sins  now,  both  require  to 
be  reconciled  with  the  righteousness  of  God. 
"The  time  of  Christ  is  a  time  of  critical  deci- 
sion, when  the  pretermission,  the  passing 
over,  of  sins,  is  at  an  end,  and  men  must 
either  accept  the  full  remission  of  sins,  or 
expose  themselves  to  the  judgment  of  a  right- 
eous God."  (Schaff.)  Many  passages  might 
be  referred  to  as  illustrating  the  same  idea. 
See,  for  example,  Luke  2:  34,35;  Acts  17  : 
80,  31;  Heb.  9:  15.  [That-t«  order  thai, 
indicates  the  purpose,  the  "intended  result" 
(Meyer),  of  setting  forth  Christ  as  a  propitia- 
tory sacrifice  through  faith  in  his  blood.] 
Mischt  be  just,  and  the  justifier.  Just  and 
justifying  is  the  more  literal  translation ; 
just  in  justifying;  that  his  justice  might  be 
exercised  and  manifested  even  in  the  act  of 
forgiving  and  accepting  the  sinful  as  righteous 
oil  their  believing  in  Jesus.  Tiiis  last  clause 
of  the  verse  explains  especially  the  object  of 
the  77ianifestation,  but  also  truly  and  compre- 
hensively of  all  that  precedes,  from  the  begin- 
ning of  ver.  25.     "  This  is  the  keystone,  the 


final  aim  of  the  whole  aifirmation:  that  he 
might  be  just  and  justifying  the  believer." 
1  Meyer. )  [If  God  could  be  really  just  (Paul 
uses  the  word  meaning  to  be,  not  the  word 
meaning  to  become,  nearly  equivalent  to  be 
nmnifested  or  regarded  as  just,  see  ver.  4)  and 
could  justify'  and  save  sinners  apart  from  the 
obedience  and  sacrifice  of  a  substitute,  how  is 
it  that  his  own  Son,  the  Son  of  his  love,  in 
human  flesh  was  made  to  bear  our  iniquities 
and  was  bruised  for  our  offences?  Just  and 
justifying  the  ungodly  I  "We  have  here  the 
greatest  paradox  of  the  gospel ;  for  in  the 
law,  God  is  seen  as  just  and  condemning;  in 
the  gospel,  he  is  seen  as  being  just  himself  and 
justifying  the  sinner."  (Bengel.)  This  "sin- 
ner," however,  is  a  penitent  believer,  one — 
literally,  that  \&  of  faith  o/ (in)  Jesus.  The 
uncials  F  G  of  the  ninth  century  omit  the 
name  Jesus,  while  other  copies  vary  the  read- 
ing. Meyer,  judging  it  to  be  a  repetition  from 
ver.  22,  thinks  it  should  be  omitted,  "not- 
withstanding the  preponderating  testimony  in 
its  favor."]  Compare  this  whole  j)assage  with 
the  Socinian  idea  of  atonement  as  operating 
only  manv^ard.  [Bishop  Butler,  in  cautious 
but  weighty  language,  states  that  "the  doc- 
trine of  the  gospel  appears  to  be,  not  only  that 
he  taught  the  eflScacy  of  repentance,  but  ren- 
dered it  of  the  efficacy  which  it  is  by  what  he 
did  and  suffered  for  us,  that  he  obtained  for  us 
the  benefit  of  having  our  repentance  accepted 
unto  eternal  life  ;  not  only  that  he  revealed 
to  sinners  that  they  were  in  a  capacity  of  sal- 
vation, and  how  they  might  obtain  it,  but, 
moreover,  that  he  put  them  into  this  capacity 
of  salvation  by  what  he  did  and  suffered  for 
them."  Dr.  Hovoy  says:  "This  passage 
(Rom.  3:  24-26)  secms  to  havc  bccn  written  for  the 
very  purpose  of  rendering  forever  vain  and 
futile  any  attempt  to  limit  the  efficacy  of  the 
Atonement  to  its  moral  influence  over  men." 
See  his  "God  with  Us,"  pp.  100-155.]  This 
is  a  standard  passage,  on  the  doctrine  of 
atonement.  Olshausen  calls  this  passage  "  the 
Acropolis  of  the  Christian  faith."  "There  is 
perhaps  no  single  passage  in  the  book  of  in- 
spiration," says  Chalmers,  "which  reveals  in 
a  way  so  formal  and  authoritative  as  the  one, 
before  us  the  path  of  transition  by  which  a 


98 


EOMANS. 


tCH.  III. 


27  Where  is  boasting  then?  It  is  excluded.  By 
■what  law  ?  of  works?    Nay  ;  but  by  the  law  of  faith. 

26  Therefore  we  conclude  that  a  man  is  justitied  by 
faith  without  the  deeds  of  the  law. 


27  Where  then  is  the  glorying?    It  is  excluded.    By 
what  manner  of  law  ?  ofworks?   Nay:  but  by  a  law 

28  of  faith,    i  We  reckon  therefore  that  a  mau  is  justi- 


1  Manv  aDcient  authorities  read  For 


sinner  passes  from  a  slate  of  wrath  to  a  state 
of  acceptance.  There  is  no  passage,  to  which 
if  we  would  only  bring  the  doc-ility  and  com- 
pliance of  childhood,  that  is  more  fitted  to 
guide  and  to  turn  an  inquiring  sinner  into  the 
way  of  peace." 

On  the  relation  of  this  passage  to  what  fol- 
lows, to  the  end  of  chapter  4,  Alford  remarks: 
"Jewish  boasting  is  altogether  removed  by 
this  truth  ;  not,  however,  by  making  void  the 
law,    not  by   degrading  Abraham   from   his 
pre-eminence;  but  by  establishing  the  law, 
and  showing  that  Abraham  was  really  justi- 
fied by  faith,  and  is  the  father  of  the  faithful." 
He  now  goes  on  to  show,  in  the  following 
verse,  that  this  way  of  gratuitous  justification, 
while  it  lays  the  firm  foundation  for  the  high- 
est assurance,   is  also  adapted  to  beget  the 
deepest  humility.     When  the  hope  of  salva- 
tion rests  on  works,  it  can  have  no  rational 
assurance.     The  man  that  is  at  all  conscious 
of  his  great  sinfulness— in  other  words,  the 
man  that  has  any  real  knowledge' of  himself, 
must  be  often  troubled  with  misgivings,  and 
harassing   doubts  and   fears,  so   long    as   his 
hope  of  acceptance  with  God  depends  in  any 
degree  upon  his  own  performances.     There  is 
no  room,  in  his  creed,  for  an  intelligent  confi- 
dence   of    his    final    salvation.       But    when 
Christ's  perfect  work  of  propitiation,  and  not 
his  own  imperfect  and  inconstant   works   of 
obedience,  is  the  sole  foundation  on  which  he 
rests,  he  has  a  hope  which  is  an  anchor  of  his 
soul,  sure  and  steadfast;   and  his  conscious- 
ness of  his  many  sins,  and  of  the  imperfec- 
tion of  his  best  acts  of  obedience,  does  not 
form  any  bar  to  his  joyful  assurance  of  salva- 
tion.    So  admirably,  in  the  gospel   scheme, 
are  humility  and   assurance  reconciled  and 
combined! 

27.  [Where  is  (in  the  Greek  the,  equiva- 
lent, perhaps,  to  ou7-)  boasting  then  ?  '  Then ' 
signifies  an  inference  or  conclusion  drawn 
from  the  preceding  passage.  Are  the  state- 
ments in  that  passage  the  invention  of  the 
author's  genius,  the  mere  figment  of  his  brain? 
or  are  they  plain,  sober,  infinitely  important 
truths?  and  do  they  furnish  to  our  minds  a 


solid  foundation  for  safe  inference?  There  is 
no  middle  view  which  we  can  take  of  this 
matter.  The  apostle's  inference  from  the 
asserted  truths  is  that  all  'boasting'  on  the 
part  of  sinners  is  excluded,  or,  in  the  words 
ofTheodoret:  "  it  no  longer  has  room."]  The 
^^ boasting"  of  the  Jews  "was  excluded" 
once  and  forever,  when  God  set  forth  his  Son 
as  a  propitiation.  The  verb  here  is  in  the 
indefinite  past  tense  ;  but  this  is  one  of  the 
cases  where  it  may  most  suitably  be  repre- 
sented in  English  by  the  perfect:  has  been 
excluded.  Tlie  contrast  in  the  following 
words:  By  what  law?  [literally:  through 
what  kind  of  law?]  is  not  between  the  law 
and  the  gospel,  as  two  dispensations ;  but  the 
word  'law'  seems  to  be  used  here  in  what  is 
sometimes  called  a  rhetorical  sense,  nearly 
equivalent  to  the  word  "principle,"  or  "rule": 
by  what  principle?  Of  Avorks?  nay, 
but  by  the  law  (principle)  of  faith.  The 
word  'law'  seems  to  be  used  in  the  like 
sense  in  7:  21,  23,  25;  8:  2,  etc.  [For  a  man 
to  believe  in  Christ  who  died  that  sinners 
might,  through  faith  in  him,  be  justified  and 
saved,  is  to  confess  himself  guilty  and  lost, 
and  that  his  hope  is  not  in  himself  but  in  the 
mercy  of  God.  By  the  gospel  man  is  thus 
both  exalted  and  abased — exalted  as  to  his 
nature,  but  abased  as  a  sinner.  From  Jew 
and  Gentile  alike  all  glorying  is  excluded. 
Each  one  is  asked  :  who  maketh  thee  to  dift'er  ? 
Each  believer  is  assured  that  even  his  salva- 
tion through  faith  is  a  gift  of  God,  and  is  not 
of  himself  or  of  his  works,  lest  he  should 
glory.  The  gospel  teaches  no  Parkerian  doc- 
trine of  self-sufiBciency,  but  that  a  Christian's 
sufiBciency  is  from  God,  and  that  if  he  glories 
he  must  glory  in  the  Lord,     (i  Cor.  i :  2s,  31 ;  2  cor 

3:5;  Eph.  2  :  8.  9.  )  ] 

28.  Therefore  we  conclude  (in  Ecvised 

Version,  reckon).  [The  Kevisers  retain  this 
'therefore,'  which  here  marks  a  second  infer- 
ence of  the  apostle.]  Instead  of  'therefore,' 
the  reading  for  [adopted  by  Westcott  and 
Hort]  is  preferable.  For  we  reckon  instead 
of  being  a  conclusion  from  what  goes  before 
is  rather  a  reason  for  what  goes  before  [a  con- 


Ch.  III.] 


ROMANS. 


99 


29  In  he  the  God  of  the  Jews  only?  is  he  not  also  of 
the  Gentiles?    Yes,  of  the  Gentiles  also: 

30  Seeing  il  is  one  (iod,  which  shall  justify  the  cir- 
cumcision by  faith,  and  uucircuuicision  through  faith. 


tied  by  faith  apart  from  i  the  works  of  the  law. 

29  Or   is   God  the   God  of   .lews  only?    Is   he   not   the 

30  God  of  Gentiles  also?  Yea,  of  Gentiles  also:  if  so 
be  that  God  is  one,  and  he  shall  justily  the  circum- 
cision 2  by  faith,  and  the  uucireumcision  ■'through 
faith. 


1  Or,  works  of  law 2  Gr.  out  of 3  Or,  through  the  faith. 


fimiation  of  the  statement  that  faith  excludes 
boasting.]     Without  the  deeds  of  the  laAV. 

This  does  not  mean  tiiat  a  man,  without  the 
deeds  of  the  law,  is  justified  by  faith  ;  but  it 
means,  as  it  reads,  that  a  man  is  justified  by 
faith,  without  the  deeds  of  the  law— that  is, 
that  the  deeds  of  the  law  contribute  nothing 
toward  his  justification.  The  statement,  in- 
terpreted fairly  by  the  common  laws  of  lan- 
guage, is  not  liable  to  the  construction  that  a 
man  who  is  justified  by  faith  is  under  no  obli- 
gation to  perform  the  deeds  of  the  law;  but 
it  would  perhaps  gain  some  additional  secur- 
ity against  such  a  misconstruction  by  being 
translated,  "for  we  reckon  that  a  man  is  justi- 
fied by  faith,  apart  from(xwpis)  works  of  law." 
The  same  truth  is  stated,  with  emphatic  reit- 
eration, in  Gal.  2  :  16.  [This  reckoning  here 
seems  to  denote  a  fixed  and  final  decision. 
On  the  word  'man'  Clirysostom  thus  re- 
marks: "He  says  not  'Jew,'  nor  'he  that  is 
under  law' ;  but  having  enlarged  the  area  of 
his  argument  and  opened  the  doors  of  salva- 
tion to  the  world,  he  says,  'man,'  using  the 
name  common  to  the  nature."  We  scarcely 
need  say  that  the  faith  of  which  Paul  speaks 
so  much  as  being  essential  to  salvation  was 
no  "dead"  faith,  but  operative,  "working 
through  love,"  and  bringing  forth  all  the 
fruits  of  righteousness.  If  we  are  justified  by 
faith  solely,  we  are  not  justified  by  a  faith 
which  is  or  remtiins  solitary.  Justification  is 
apart  from  works,  but  faith  is  not.  Were  it 
otherwise,  faith  would-be  inoperative,  dead — 
in  fact,  no  faith  at  all.  Paul's  faith  was  a 
deeply  seated,  a  deeply  earnest,  an  intensely 
active  and  operative  principle,  moving  his 
whole  being  toward  Christ  and  Christian 
duty.  With  his  whole  heart,  as  we  believe, 
he  would  have  subscribed  to  the  truth  of  F. 
W.  Robertson's  statement  that  "Faith  alone 
justifies;  but  not  the  faith  which  is  alone." 
jidding  simply  this,  that  the  faith  last  spoken 
of  did  not  deserve  the  natne  of  faith.  The 
Confession  of  Faith  adopted  by  our  Puritan 
Fathers  at  a  synod  held  at  Cambridge,  1648, 


declares  that  "Ftiith  thus  receiving  and  rest- 
ing on  Christ  and  his  righteousness  is  the 
alone  instrument  of  justification  ;  yet  it  is 
not  alone  in  the  person  justified,  but  is  ever 
accompanied  with  all  other  saving  graces, 
and  is  no  dead  faith,  but  worketh  by  love." 
According  to  Paul's  doctrinal  scheme,  be- 
lievers are  created  in  Christ  Jesus  for  good 
works,  and  are  to  be  zealous  of  good  works ; 
and  he  exhorts  them  to  be  careful  to  maintain 
good  works,  and  to  be  rich  in   good  works. 

(*;ph.  2:  10;    Titus  2  ;  14  ;    3:U;    lTim.6:18.)       Nor     did 

the  faith  which  Luther  advocated  ignore 
good  works.  He  says:  "It  is  as  impossible 
to  separate  works  from  faith  as  to  separate 
heat  and  light  from  fire."  Yet  much  abuse 
was  heaped  upon  him  by  his  opponents  for 
his  translation  of  this  verse:  "So  now  we 
hold  that  a  man  is  justified,  without  the 
works  of  the  law,  only  through  faith"  (a/lein 
durch  den  Glauben — sola  fide,  whence  comes 
the  epithet,  Solifidians).  The  meaning  is  in 
the  text,  but  a  translation  did  not  require  its 
express  statement.] 

29,  30.  Is  he  the  God  of  the  JeAVs  only? 
is  he  not  also  of  the  Gentiles?  [This 
query  is  designed  to  confirm  the  principle, 
stated  in  the  last  verse,  that  no  man  is  justified 
by  works  of  the  law.  The  Gentiles  have  no 
such  law  as  the  Jews,  and  if  one  is  justified 
before  God  only  by  works  of  law,  then  is  God 
the  God  of  the  Jews  only.  Seeing  it  is  one 
God,  or,  as  rendered  in  the  Revised  Yersion, 
"  If  so  be  that  God  is  one."  This  supposes  a 
unity  of  dispensation.  See  Ellicott  on  Gal. 
2:5.  The  words  'Jews' and  'Gentiles'  are 
without  the  article  in  the  original,  since,  as 
proper  names,  the  Greek  does  not  require  it.] 
The  circumcision — and  uucireumcision 
— that  is  the  Jews  and  the  Gentiles.  Shall 
justify.  The  future  is  used  here,  not 
with  reference  to  the  day  of  judgment, 
but  by  a  common  idiom  of  most  lan- 
guages, to  express  a  permanent  purpose,  or 
habit.  The  diflference  between  the  expres- 
sions by  faith  (or,  more  literally,  from  faith) 


100 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  III. 


31  Do  we  then  make  void  the  law  through  faith?  God  |  HI      Do  we  then  make  i  the  law  of  none  effect  ^through 
forbid  :  yea,  we  establish  the  law.  I        faith?    God  forbia;  nay,  we  establish  tne  law. 


1  Or,  law 2  Or,  through  the  faith. 


and  through  (the)  faith,'^  does  not  seem  to  have 
any  doctrinal  significance.  In  ver.  28,  faith 
stands  in  the  Greek  text  without  any  preposi- 
tion, but  in  a  form  which  indicates  that  it  is 
the  instrumental  cause,  the  '^ sine  qua  non," 
of  justification— the  three  forms  of  expression 
are  equivalent.  [It  is  not  unnatural  for 
writers  to  vary  the  choice  of  nearly  sj'nony- 
mous  words  merely  for  the  sake  of  variety, 
and  this  appears  to  have  been  often  the  case 
with  Paul.  See  Winer,  g  50.  De  Wette, 
however,  makes  the/rom  denote  the  objective 
ground,  and  through,  the  subjective  medium. 
In  the  one  case  justification  is  represented,  as 
a  result  of  faith,  or  resulting  from  faith,  and 
in  the  other  as  resulting  by  means  of  faith  — 
fiiith  being  thus  represented  as  a  source  and  as 
a  means.  (Winer,  p.  411.)  Some  have  con- 
jectured that  frotn  more  appropriately  refers 
to  the  Jews,  members  of  the  Commonwealth 
of  Israel,  while  through  relates  to  the  admis- 
sion of  Gentile  strangers.  Yet  froin  is  used 
of  Gentiles.  (9: 30;  Gai.  3:  8.)  Calviu  finds  in 
this  interchange  of  prepositions  a  delicate 
irony:  "  If  any  one  wishes  to  have  a  differ- 
ence made  between  the  Gentile  and  the  Jew, 
let  hiin  take  this — that  the  one  obtains  right- 
eousness hy  faith,  and  the  other  through 
faith,"  which,  in  our  opinion,  would  be  some- 
thing like  a  "quip,  or  merry  turn,"  which 
Cowper  said  could  not  be  found  in  Paul's 
writings.] 

31.  Do  we  then  make  void  the  law 
through  faith?  [This  law,  according  to  De 
Wette  (and  Mej'er),  is  "the  Mosaic  law  which 
demands  works."  The  word  "make  void" 
((toTapyew,  the  root  of  which  is  a — epyos,  7iot  work- 
ing,  inoperative,  hence,  poiverless)  is  a  favorite 
with  Paul,  being  used  in  his  epistles  twenty- 
five  times,  and  found  only  twice  elsewhere. 
See  also  comments  on  6:6.  For  some  other 
si)ecially  Pauline  words  and  phrases,  see  notes 
on  Acts  20 :  35.  Paul's  doctrine  of  a  right- 
eousness apart  from  law,  a  justification  apart 
from  works  (see  ver.  21,  28),  would  naturally 
give  rise  to  the  idea  that  he  nullified  the  law 
through  faith.]  The  statement  we  estab- 
lish the  law  admits  of  two  explanations.     1. 


We  establish  or  confirm  the  law  by  the  fore- 
going doctrine  of  faith  as  the  indispensable 
condition  of  justification,  because  this  doc- 
trine effectually  secures  the  fulfillment  of  the 
law.  This  truth,  constantly  affirmed  or  as- 
sumed in  the  Scriptures,  is.  formally  and 
elaborately  yjroved  in  chapters  6,  7  and  8  of 
this  Epistle.  2.  We  establish,  or  confirm  the 
law,  by  our  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith, 
because  this  way  of  justification  agrees  with 
the  teaching  of  the  law — that  is,  of  the  Old 
Testament.  ["The  principle  of  justif^'ing 
faith  is  pointed  out  in  the  law  itself."  (De 
Wette.)  "Justification  by  the  grace  of  God 
through  faith  is  already  taught  in  the  law." 
(Meyer.)]  This  has  already  been  intimated  in 
ver.  21,  "  witnessed  by  the  law  and  the  proj)li- 
ets;"  and  this  the  apostle  immediately  pro- 
ceeds to  show,  in  the  next  chapter,  from  the 
instances  of  Abraham  and  David.  We  con- 
clude, therefore,  that  this  latter  explanation, 
as  being  more  in  agreement  with  the  context, 
is  what  the  apostle  means  by  we  establish 
the  law.  [In  illustration  of  the  truth  of  the 
apostIe"s  assertion.  Bishop  Wordsworth  ad- 
duces the  following  considerations — namely, 
the  doctrine  of  justification  is  grounded  on 
the  testimony  of  the  law  that  all  are  under 
sin;  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  on  the  cross  was 
pre-announced  by  the  passovor  and  other  sac- 
rifices of  the  law;  the  law  reveals  God  as  a 
just  Judge  who  needs  an  adequate  propitia- 
tion for  sin;  the  death  of  Christ  is  such  a 
propitiation,;  Christ  has  by  his  perfect  obedi- 
ence to  the  law,  both  in  doing  and  suffering, 
established  its  moral  dignity,  etc.,  etc.  Ac- 
cording to  Godet,  Paul  has  shown  that  the 
teaching  opposite  to  his  would  overturn  the 
law  "by  keeping  up  the  vainglory  of  man 
which  the  law  was  meant  to  destroy,  and  by 
violating  monotheism  on  which  it  is  based." 
Calvin  says:  "Where  there  is  a  coming  to 
Christ  there  is  first  found  in  him  the  perfect 
righteousness  of  the  law,  which  becomes  ours 
bj'  imputation,  and  then  there  is  sanctification, 
by  which  our  hearts  are  prepared  to  keep  the 
law,  which,  indeed,  is  imperfectly  done — but 
there  is  an  aiming  at  the  work.     Similar  is 


1  The  article  before  the  second  faith,  Prof.  Boise  says, 
"seems  to  point  to  the  lact  that  the  word  had  just  been 


mentioned,  and  that  the  faith  was  the  same  in  each 
case."— (F.) 


Ch.  IV.] 


ROMANS. 


101 


CHAPTER  IV. 


WHAT  shall  we  say  then  that  Abraham  our  father, 
as  pertaining  to  the  tiesh,  hath  found? 
2  For  if  Abraham  were  jiislitieil  by  works,  he  hath 
whereof  to  glory ;  but  not  before  Ciod. 


1  What  then  shall  we  say  '  that  Abraham,  6ur  fore- 

2  father  2  hath  found  according  to  thetlesh?    lor  if 
Abraham  was  justified  ^by  works,  he  hath  whereof 


1  Some  ancient  amhori Ilea  read  o/ 46i-o7*am,  our  forefather  according  to  thejleaht 2, Or,  according  to  thejleth,  hath  found  t 

3  Gr.  out  of. 


the  case  with  ceremonies.  .  .  .  Viewed  in 
themselves  they  are  vain  and  shadowy  images, 
and  tiien  only  do  they  attain  anything  real 
and  solid,  when  their  end  is  regarded.  In 
this,  then,  consists  their  chief  confirmation 
when  they  have  obtained  their  accomplish- 
ment in  Christ."]  The  expression  God  for- 
bid is  explained  in  the  note  on  ver.  4. 


Ch.  4:  [Justification  by  faith  tlirough 
grace,  illustrated  by  examples  from  the  Old 
Testament  Scriptures.] 

1.  What  shall  we  say  then.    What,  then, 
if  such  be  the  way  of  justification,  shall  we 
say  of  the  righteous  men  who  lived  under  the 
Old  Testament  Dispensation?     What  has  our 
forefather  Abraham  gained  by  the  fleshly  rite 
if  justification  is  by  faith?     [De  Wette  gives 
tliis  paraphrase  :   What,  now  (if,  as  ye  Jews 
suppose,  all  depends  upon  works  of  law),  shall 
we  say  that  Abraham  has  obtained  (namely, 
for  his  juslilication)  according  to  the  flesh? 
The  Jews  evidently  supposed  that  Abraham 
obtained  from  liis  works  justification  before 
God,  and  hence  had  cause  for  glorying  before 
God  and  man.     The  apostle,  in  what  follows, 
seems  to  concede  that  if  Abraham  obtained 
from   his  own   labor  aught  for  justification, 
he  had  in  this  some  ground  for  glorying,  but 
denies  that  the  justification  thus  supposedly 
obtained  furnished  any  ground   of  glorying 
before  God.  and  thus,  in  effect,  denies  that  he 
was  justified   by   works.     Dr.  Hodge   thinks 
this  chapter  would  have  opened  differently  if 
the  establishing  of  tiie  law  consisted  merely 
in  showing  that  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures, 
by   the  examples  of   Abraham   and   David, 
taught  the  faith   method   of  justification,  or 
justification  by  grace.]     The  words  as  per- 
taining  to   the   flesh   should    probably  be 
connected  with  the  verb  hath  found  rather 
than   with   the   words    our    father  (or,  our 
forefather,  as  it  is  in  the  most  ancient  manu- 
scripts).    These  words,   'as  pertaining  to  the 
flesh,'  would  seem  superfluous  and  unmeaning 
when   connected  [as  in  the   Canterbury  Re-  I 


vision]  with  Abraham,  but  have  a  very  per- 
tinent sense'  as  connected  with  the  verb. 
'Hath  found'  is  the  more  literal,  but  hath 
gaitied  expresses  the  idea  more  clearly,  and  is 
justified  by  the  use  of  the  same  verb  in  Heb. 
9  :  1'2,  where  it  is  translated  "obtained." 
[The  meaning  of  the  Greek  expression  trans- 
lated 'as  pertaining  to  the  flesh'  would  be 
represented  more  exactly  in  this  place  by  the 
phrase,  "by  way  of  the  flesh,"  or,  "in  virtue 
of  the  flesh."  Compare  Matt.  19:3;  1  Cor. 
3:  10;  2Thess.  1:12;  2  Tim.  1:  9;  Rom.  4; 
16.  And  '  the  flesh  '  is  here  used  as  equivalent 
to  the  natural  man,  who  works  by  and  for 
himself,  and  as  the  antithesis  of  grace  and  the 
spirit  of  God.  "What,  then,  shall  we  say 
that  Abraham  attained  by  virtue  of  the 
flesh?"  (A.  H.)]  [Westcottand  Hort,  and 
the  English  Revisers  in  the  margin,  omit  the 
verb  '  hath  found.'  It  should,  without  doubt, 
be  retained,  as  the  for  of  the  next  sentence 
seems  to  refer  to  it  or  to  its  answer.] 

2.  For  if  Abraham  were  justified  by 
works,  he  hath  whereof  to  glory.  There 
is  an  appearance  of  inexactness,  or  want  of 
perfect  congruity,  in  the  use  of  the  tenses 
here,  which  does  not  belong  to  the  original. 
'If  he  t<;ere  justified  by  works,  he  u-ould  have 
whereof  to  glory'  (or  ground  of  boasting), 
would  be  the  more  exact  and  regular  con- 
struction ;  or,  'if  he  teas  justified  by  works, 
he  has  whereof  to  glory.'  This  Inst  is,  in  fact, 
the  precise  form  of  the  original  sentence. 
[Prof.  Stuart  thinks  the  use  of  the  present 
instead  of  the  imperfect  (t'x*  with  iv)  "shows 
a  design  on  the  part  of  the  writer  to  say,  not 
only  that  Abraham  would  have  had  ground 
of  glorying,  in  case  of  perfect  obedience,  but 
that  the  same  would  have  continued  down  to 
the  then  present  time."]  We  naturally  expect 
here  an  answer  to  the  question  of  the  preced- 
ing verse,  but  the  apostle  seems  to  have  re- 
garded the  true  answer,  "nothing  at  all  "  'so 
far  as  relates  to  justification),  as  so  plain  that 
it  did  not  need  to  be  stated.  The  '  for '  assumes 
this  answer :    Abraham   certainly  gained  no 


102 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  IV. 


3  For  what  saith  the  Scripture?    Abraham  believed 
God,  and  it  was  counted  unto  him  for  righteousness. 


3  to  glory:  but  not  toward  God.    For  what  saith  the 
scripture?    And  Abraham  believed  God,  and  it  was 


advantage  in  respect  to  his  justification,  by 
circumcision  or  any  other  work,  'for,'  if  he 
had,  he  would  have  ground  of  boasting  before 
God,  which  he  has  not.  [Godet  thinks  this 
verse  gives  the  reason  for  putting  the  above 
question.  The  phrase  'by  works'  throws 
light  on  the  phrase,  'pertaining  to  the  flesh.' 
These  'works'  pertain  to  the  flesh,  since  they 
proceed  not  from  the  spirit  or  the  spiritual 
element  of  faith.  The  reference  to  circum- 
cision is  excluded  by  the  plural  '  works.'  (De 
Wette.)] 

'  Whereof  to  glory.'  The  noun  so  translated 
is  only  another  form  of  the  same  word  trans- 
lated boasting  in  chapter  3  :  27.  There  the  act 
of  boasting  is  meant;  here  it  is  matter  of 
boasting,  or  something  to  boast  of.  The  apos- 
tle carefully  observes  the  nice  distinction  be- 
tween the  two  forms  of  the  word.  [The  final 
clause  but  not  before  God  is  regarded  by 
interpreters  as  one  of  special  difficulty.  It  is 
understood  by  the  Greek  expositors — Chrys- 
ostom,  CEcumenius,  Theophylact,  and  Theo- 
doret — as  meaning  that  if  Abraham  had  per- 
formed all  the  good  works  required  by  the 
law,  he  would  have  had  ground  for  glorying 
in  himself  or  in  his  own  righteousness,  but  not 
in  respect  to  God  or  what  God  had  done  for 
him.  This  interpretation  is  adopted  by  Meyer 
and  Tholuck,  but  opposed  by  Philippi,  on  the 
ground  that  "this  was  precisely  what  the 
.Jews  maintained."  But  did  the  Jews  main- 
tain this?  Did  they  not  think  themselves  to 
be  the  favorites  of  heaven,  and  believe  that 
God  had  given  them  the  law  by  which  they 
might  work  out  their  own  salvation?  Did 
they  not  think  that  they  had  ground  for 
boasting  in  respect  to  God,  even  though  they 
supposed  themselves  to  be  justified  by  works? 
.Just  this  Paul  denies.  If  Abraham  was  jus- 
tified by  works,  he  has  ground  for  boasting  in 
respect  to  himself,  but  not  in  respect  to  God. 
(A.  H.)]  [Meyer,  as  above  intimated,  fol- 
lows the  interpretation  of  the  Greek  exposi- 
tors, thus:  "Assuming  that  Abraham  has 
been  justified  by  works,  he  has  cause  for 
boasting— namely,  that  he  has  attained  right- 
eousness through  his  actions;  but  he  has  not 
this  ground  of  boasting  with  respect  to  God 
(as  if  his  justification  were  the  divine  act), 
since,  in  the  case  supposed,  it  is  not  God  to 


whom  he  owes  the  justification,  but,  on  the 
contrary,  he  has  himself  earned  it."  The  Five 
Clergymen  put  a  period  after  boasting,  and 
give  this  rendering :  '  But  he  hath  none  before 
God:  for  what  saith  the  Scripture?'] 

3.  For  what  saith  the  Scripture? 
[The  interrogative  form  gives  force  and  vigor 
to  the  passage  cited.  (lO:  8;  u:  4.)  The  'for' 
here  confirms  the  last  clause  of  ver.  2.  That 
he  has  no  ground  to  boast  is  certain;  'for' 
the  Scripture  says,  etc.  The  passage  here 
quoted  is  found  in  Gen.  15  :  6.  The  Scrip- 
ture says  that  faith,  and  not  works,  was 
counted  to  Abraham  for  righteousness.  This 
passage  (found  for  substance  in  1  Mace. 
2  :  52)  is  cited  almost  verbatim  from  the 
Septuagint.  See  also  Gal.  3:  6.  In  the 
Hebrew  it  reads:  'And  he  (Jehovah)  counted 
it  to  him  for  righteousnes.'  Even  in  Abra- 
ham's believing  God,  as  Meyer  remarks,  Paul 
has  rightly  discerned  nothing  substantially 
difl"erent  from  the  Christian  faith,  since  his 
faith  had  reference  to  the  AWiuq  promise,  and 
indeed,  to  the  promise  which  he  recognized  as 
that  which  embraced  in  it  the  future  Messiah. 
(jobn8;56.)  "Faith,"  says  Philippi,  "does 
not  justify  man  before  God  on  account  of  its 
subjective  character,  a  view  which  must  be 
described  as  falling  back  to  the  legal  stand- 
point, but  it  justifies  man  only  on  account  of 
its  object  and  import,  which  is  no  other  than 
Christ,  or  God's  forgiving  grace  in  Christ. 
Even  Abraham  knew  and  in  faith  embraced 
the  promise  of  this  grace  (see  John  8:  56), 
and  this  faith  was  reckoned  to  him  for  right- 
eousness." "  It  (faith)  means  believing,  not, 
however,  as  a  virtuous  exercise  of  the  mind, 
which  God  consented  to  accept  instead  of  per- 
fect obedience,  but  as  having  respect  to  the 
promised  Messiah,  and  so  to  his  righteousness 
as  the  ground  of  acceptance."  (Andrew 
Fuller.) 

"The  meaning  of  the  phrase:  counted  for 
righteousness,  or  to  accept  and  treat  as  right- 
eous, is  here  very  plain.  It  signifies  gratui- 
tous or  unmerited  justification  on  the  grounds 
already  explained.  By  the  apostle's  own 
explanation  in  the  context,  this  justification 
is  one  which  is  'according  to  grace'  (ver.  24) 
and  'apart  from  works.'  (ver.  e).  While 
faith,  or  belief,  then,  is  absolutely  necessary 


Ch.  IV.] 


ROMANS. 


103 


4  Now  to  him  that  workelh  is  the  reward  uot  reck- 
oned of  graco,  but  of  debt. 

5  Hut  to  him  tliat  worktth  not,  but  believeth  on  him 
that  jusiifleth  the  ungodly,  his  faith  is  counted  for 
righleousuess. 


4  reckoned  unto  liini  for  righteousness.     Now  to  him 
that  worketh,  the   reward   is   not   reckoned   as  of 

5  grace,  but  as  of  debt.     Hut  to  him  that  worketli  not, 
but  believeth  on  him  that  justilieib  the  ungodly,  his 


in  order  to  prepare  a  man  to  become  the 
proper  subject  of  the  gratuitous  justification 
which  tlie  gospel  proffers;  while  without  faith 
he  cannot  be  justified  ;  yet  faith  is  not  in  any 
legal  sense  the  meritorious  ground  of  justifi- 
cation, nor  does  the  promise  attached  to  it 
imply  a  reward  of  merit,  but  only  of  grace." 
(Prof.  Stuart.)]  Abraham  showed  his  faith 
in  God  by  leaving  his  own  country  at  God's 
command;  by  believing  God's  promise,  that  he 
should  have  a  numerous  posterity,  when  the 
cliild  of  promise  was  not  born,  though  he  was 
about  a  hundred  years  old  ;  and  by  giving  that 
promised  child  as  a  sacrifice  at  the  command 
of  God.  Compare  Heb.  11 :  8,  9,  12,  17-19. 
The  apostle  selects  the  second  of  the  above 
instances  for  particular  development  in  the 
context,  (ver.  i7-i2)  ;  and,  indeed,  this  was  tlie 
exemplification  of  Abraham's  faith  specially 
referred  to  in  the  passage  of  Genesis,  which 
he  quotes.  It  was  counted  unto  him  for 
ri?;hteousness :  'it' — that  is,  his  believing 
God,  his  faith.  ["If  the  gosjjcl  of  St. 
JMatthew  fitly  opens  the  whole  evangelical 
rec<jrd  by  connecting  it  with  the  former  Scrip- 
tures, so  also  for  the  same  reason  does  this 
great  Epistle  open  the  doctrinal  series:  for 
what  the  one  does  in  respect  of  fact  the  other 
does  in  respect  of  doctrine,  justifying  through- 
out the  intimation  with  which  it  opens,  that 
the  gospel  will  here  be  treated  as  that  '  which 
God  had  promised  before  by  his  prophets  in 
the  Holy  Scriptures.'  In  the  constant  refer- 
ences and  in  the  whole  line  of  argument,  we 
see  the  illustrious  genealogy  and  lineal  descent 
of  the  Christian  doctrine  of  justification  by 
faith,  traced,  like  that  of  Jesus  himself,  from 
Abraham  and  David,  and  vindicated  by  the 
witness  of  the  Law  and  the  Prophets;  so  that  we 
enter  on  the  final  exposition  of  the  truth  with 
a  settled  sense  that  in  all  the  successive  stages 
of  its  revelation  the  truth  has  still  been  one." 
(Bernard's  "Progress  of  Doctrine  in  the  New 
Testament,"  p.  167.)  DeWette  says  :  "When 
tlie  apostle  in  this  way  unites  the  climax  of! 
religious    development    with    the    historical  i 


point  of  beginning — for  the  developing  series 
commenced  witii  Abraham — he  gives  evidence 
of  great  historical  insight.''] 

4.  To  confirm  what  he  had  already  said 
in  regard  to  Abraham's  justification,  he 
now  shows  that  faith  excludes  works,  as  a 
ground  of  justification,  inasmuch  as  they 
proceed  from  antagonistic  principles,  the  for- 
mer coming  under  the  principle  of  grace 
[favor  freely  shown  to  the  undeserving],  an^l 
the  latter  under  the  principle  of  merit.  It  is 
no  favor  to  give  a  man  what  he  has  earned 
or  deserved.  Now  to  him  that  worketh 
[Luther:  "is  occupied  with  workc"] — that  is, 
to  him  that  earns  wages  by  work.  [The  sup- 
position here  is  that  he  does  his  work  per- 
fectly.] Is  the  reward  not  reckoned  of 
grace  (that  is,  as  a  favor)  but  of  (or,  is  paid 
as  a)  debt.  ['The  reward'  ;  as  the  noun  has 
here  the  article,  it  is  equivalent  to  the  de- 
served reward.  The  word  for  debt  is  used  by 
Paul  onl3'  here.  There  is  a  sense  in  which  it 
could  be  said  that  God  would  not  owe  us  any- 
thing, even  if  we  had  done  all  "the  thing.^ 
that  were  commanded."  (Luken:io.)  It  is  be- 
cause we  are  all  undeserving,  and  can  strictly 
claim  nothing  as  a  debt,  that  God  in  his 
sovereignty  can  justly  give  to  the  one  hour 
laborer  the  same  as  to  him  who  has  borne  the 
burden  and  heat  of  the  day.  (Matt.  20 :  12.)'  "The 
merit  of  a  creature  before  the  Creator  is  pac- 
tional.  It  is  founded  upon  a  promise  or 
covenant,  and  not  upon  the  original  relation 
between  the  finiteand  thelnfinite."  (Shedd.)] 

5.  But  to  him  that  worketh  not — that 
is,  that  does  not  earn  anything  by  working 
[does  not  merit  anj-thing  by  full  and  perfect 
obedience,  consequentlj^,  does  not  work  for 
hire  or  reward.  "  Bj'  'working  not,'  the 
apostle  did  not  mean  a  wicked  inaction,  but 
a  renunciation  of  works  as  the  ground  of 
acceptance  with  God."  (A.  Fuller.)2  The 
un.godly  [literally,  'the  non-worshiper,'  but 
used  here  in  a  more  general  sense],  the  nat- 
ural state  of  all  men,  even  Abraham  not 
excepted.     Compare  5:6.     It   is  utterly  im- 


>  Trench  remarks  that  this  parable  of  the  laborers  in  the  vineyard  "  mipht  justly  be  entitled  :  On  the  nature 
of  rewards  in  the  kingdom  of  God— the  whole  finding  an  instructive  commentary  in  Rom.  4:  1-4."— (F.) 
*  The  apostle,  referring  here  to  a  supposed  class,  uses  the  subjective  negative  fi>}. 


104 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  IV. 


possible  to  combine  faith  and  works,  grace 
and  merit,  as  joint  and  co-ordinate  conditions 
of  salvation.  They  will  not  amalgamate. 
Compare  11 :  6.  On  the  Komish  (or  any 
other)  theory  of  justification  by  inwrought 
righteousness,  there  can  be  no  intelligent 
ground  of  assurance  of  salvation  for  any  man 
in  this  world.  [On  the  word  'ungodly,' 
Meyer  thus  remarks:  "It  is  not  even  to  be 
weakened  as  equivalent  to  unrighteous,  but 
has  been  purposely  selected  (compare  5:  6) 
in  order  to  set  forth  the  saving  power  of  faith 
by  as  strong  a  contrast  as  possible  to  '  him 
that  justifieth.' "  The  'justifieth'  explains 
the  '  righteousness  '  which  God  imparts  to 
the  penitent  believer.  Whea  God  justifies 
an  ungodly  man,  he  does  not  justify  his 
ungodly  deeds,  but  he  forgives  him,  being 
penitent,  acquits  him  of  deserved  punish- 
ment, and  restores  him  to  favor.  Though 
"justification  respects  a  man  as  ungodly  " 
(Edwards),  yet  it  cannot  be  truly  said  that 
God  justifies  the  ungodly  man  as  such  or  re- 
maining such,  only  so  far  as  a  penitent  be- 
liever may  in  himself  ever  be  regarded  as  sin- 
ful and  deserving  of  condemnation.  Jehovah 
will  not  justify  the  wicked  (ex.  23;  7) — that  is, 
those  who  are  determinedly  such.  Fuller 
says  :  "  Saving  faith,  or  faith  that  worketh  by 
love,  is  necessary  to  justification,  not  as  being 
the  ground  of  our  acceptance  with  God,  not 
as  a  virtue  of  which  justification  is  the  re- 
ward, but  as  that  without  which  we  could 
not  be  united  to  a  living  Redeemer."  And 
again:  "Faith  justifies  not  in  respect  of  the 
act  of  believing,  but  of  the  righteousness  on 
which  it  terminates."  Prof.  Stuart  rightly 
enough  remarks  that  "in  all  cases  of  logizo- 
mni  (to  reckon  or  impute)  as  applied  to 
Abraham's  faith,  or  that  of  others  wlio  follow 
his  example,  it  is  only  his  or  their  own  faith 
which  is  counted  for  righteousness."  But 
may  we  not  find  a  gratuitous  imputntion  in 
Abraham's  case  and  in  ours,  in  that  a  faith 
which  viewed  subjectively  was  not  in  the 
sight  of  God  a  perfect  righteousness,  was  yet 
through  grace  and  on  account  of  the  obj.ect 
of  faith  accepted  for  righteousness?  Even 
the  Christian's  faith,  which  is  in  essence  only 
the  renunciation  of  all  merit,  and  is  but  im- 


perfect at  best,  is  not  in  itself  meritorious; 
and  if  this  faith  is  reckoned  for  righteousness 
the  objective  ground  of  such  gracious  impu- 
tation is  the  righteousness  of  Christ.  See 
Meyer's  note  on  4:  4,  5.' 

"It  is  not  in  any  wise  on  account  of  any 
excellency  or  value  there  is  in  faith  that  it 
appears  in  the  sight  of  God  a  meet  thing  that 
he  that  believes  should  have  this  benefit  of 
Christ  assigned  to  him,  but  purely  from  the 
relation  faith  has  to  the  person  in  whom  this 
benefit  is  to  be  had,  or  as  it  unites  to  that 
Mediator  in  and  by  whom  we  are  justified.'' 
(Edwards'  "Justification  by  Faith  Alone.") 
It  is  said  that  the  parallel  between  Abraham 
and  the  Christian  believer  is  not  complete, 
faith  being  imputed  to  Abraham  for  right- 
eousness; while  Christ's  righteousness — or,  as 
Canon  Evans  of  the  "Bible  Commentary" 
(1  Cor.  1:30)  would  have  it,  the  "righteousness 
of  God  the  Father" — is  imputed  to  the  peni- 
tent sinner  by  faith.  Again,  if  the  righteous- 
ness of  God  is  "61/  faith,"  then  faith  itself 
cannot  be  that  righteousness.  We  answer 
that  this  faith,  nevertheless,  can  through 
grace,  and  in  view  of  Christ's  merits,  be  reck- 
oned for  righteousness.  And  if  faith  in  Christ 
as  a  condition  (not  the  ground)  of  justification 
makes  us  righteous  in  God's  sight,  it  is  no 
contradiction  to  say  that  faith  is  reckoned  to  us 
for  righteousness,  and  that  this  righteousness 
becomes  ours  through  faith.  Though  "the 
Bible  never  says  'faith  justifies'  "  (Schaff),  yet 
we  have  the  substantial  equivalent  of  this,  not 
only  in  the  phrase,  justified  by  faith,  but  in 
the  expression,  faith  is  reckoned  for  righteous- 
ness, which  means  that  we  are  regarded  and 
treated  as  righteous  through  faith  in  the  Re- 
deemer. See  in  4:5,  6,  9,  11,  the  frequent 
interchange  of  the  expression,  the  imputation 
of  faith  for  righteousness,  and  the  imputation 
of  righteousness  to  the  believer.  To  reckon 
one's  faith  for  righteousness  is  but  another 
expression  for  imputing  righteousness  accord- 
ing to  grace  and  without  works  (*:5,  e,  le);  and 
the  imputing  of  Christ's  righteousness  to  the 
believer  simply  denotes  that  "his  perfect  obe- 
dience is  reckoned  to  our  account,  so  that  we 
have  the  benefit  of  it  as  though  we  performed 
it  ourselves."     (Edwards.)     The  faith  which 


1  In  Meyer's  opinion,  it  is  our  subjective  faith  which  I  always  remains  the  meritorious  cause  to  which  we  are 
is-iniputed  for  righteousness,  yet  "The  merit  of  Christ  I  indebted  for  the  imputation  of  our  faith."— (F.) 


Ch.  IV.] 


KOMANS. 


105 


is  reckoned  for  righteousness  unites  us  to 
Christ,  puts  us,  as  it  were,  in  Christ,  God's 
well-beloved  Son,  so  that  God  looks  upon  us, 
not  as  in  our  naked  selves,  but  as  in  Christ, 
and  thus  regards  us  as  sons  and  as  righteous 
in  and  on  account  of  Christ's  righteousness. 
Philippi  says:  "The  imputation  of  faith  is 
of  itself  identical  with  the  imputation  of  right- 
eousness by  grace.  With  Paul  faith  is  always 
in  the  act  of  justification,  the  opposite  of  works 
and  the  correlative  notion  to  grace.  (ii:6.) 
Hence,  witli  good  reason,  the  evangelical 
church  has  explained  the  expression,  'faith  is 
reckoned  as  righteousness'— seeing  that  this  is 
done  by  grace  for  the  sake  of  Christ's  right- 
eouness— as  equivalent  to  the  proposition : 
'Christ's  righteousness  is  reckoned  to  the 
believer  as  righteousness.'  "  Christ  thus  be- 
comes the  end  or  aim  of  the  law  for  righteous- 
ness to  the  believer,  and  in  him  we  become 
the  righteousness  of  God.  But  the  Scriptures 
do  not  in  explicit  phrase  speak  of  imputing 
Christ's  righteousness  to  the  believer,  and 
probably  nearly  all  that  is  meant  by  this 
expression  is  that  we,  believing  and  trusting 
in  him,  are  justified  and  saved  through  and 
on  the  ground  of  the  merits  of  his  righteous- 
ness. "Impiited  righteousness  is  Christ's 
righteousness  in  the  sense  that  it  is  the  fruit 
and  purchase  of  his  work  in  the  flesh." 
(Quotation  in  "Bible  Commentary.")  Of 
course,  the  righteousness  of  Christ  cannot  be 
actually  communicated  to  us.  It  is,  as  Tuck- 
ney  remarks,  "proper  to  himself,  and  is  as 
inseparable  from  him  and  as  incommunicable 
to  others  as  any  other  attribute  of  a  thing  or 
its  essence  itself."  When  Christ  was  made 
sin  for  us,  he  suffered  for  our  transgressions, 
and  was  himself  treated  as  a  transgressor,  but 
was  not  himself  a  sinner.  He  died  the  just 
for  the  unjust.  "Debts  are  transferable,  but 
crimes  are  not."  (A.  Fuller.)  So  by  our 
union  with  Christ,  and  by  virtue  of  his  right- 
eousness, we,  though  imperfect,' are  accepted 
as  righteous.  In  Christ  "we  are  'made  right- 
eousness,' as  if  we  had  not  sinned  at  all." 
(Charnock.)     "The  righteousness  is  still  in 


Christ,  not  in  us,  even  when  we  are  made 
partakers  of  the  benefit  of  it."  (Bunyan. ) 
"Obedience  itself  may  be  and  is  imputed, 
while  its  effects  only  are  imparled  and  conse- 
quently received."  (A.  Fuller.)'  Inregardto 
the  question,  whether  the  Scriptures  impute 
that  to  a  person  which  he  himself  does  not 
possess,  we  will  quote  Prof  Cremer's  remarks 
relating  to  the  justification  of  Abraham.  In 
the  expression  'to  impute  for,'  etc.,  as  here 
used,  "the  actual  fact,"  he  says,  "is  not 
taken  into  account ;  the  opposite  rather  is  as- 
sumed, and  according  to  this  is  the  relation- 
ship or  treatment  regulated.  That  is  trans- 
ferred to  the  subject  in  question  and  imputed 
to  him,  which  in  and  for  itself  does  not  belong 
to  him;  ....  something  is  imputed  to  the 
person  pe7-  subsiitidionem.  The  object  in 
question  supplies  the  place  of  that  for  which 
it  answers;  it  is  substituted  for  it.  That  this 
is  the  apostle's  thought  is  clear  from  Kom.  4  : 
4,  where  the  imputing  of  ver.  3  is  distinctly 
described  as  imputing  according  to  grace." 
If  this  were  not  an  imputing  according  to 
grace,  a  reckoning  by  substitution,  the  state- 
ment at  the  end  should  have  been  :  His  right- 
eousness was  imputed,  etc.  But  faith  is  now 
put  in  the  place  of  righteousness.  Compare 
ver.  6,  'to  whom  God  imputeth  the  righteous- 
ness without  works,'  which,  according  to  ver. 
8,  denotes  the  forgiveness  of  sins.  Thus  this 
imputing  by  substitution,  or  according  to 
grace,  is  a  technical  term  for  the  justifying 
act  of  God."  Similarly,  Dr.  Weiss:  "God 
reserves  it  to  himself  to  appoint  a  condition 
under  which  he  justifies  the  sinner.  This  con- 
dition is  faith.  .  .  .  Accordingly,  the  act  of 
justification  can  also  be  described  as  that  faith 
is  reckoned  by  God  as  righteousness.  This  is 
a  pure  act  of  divine  grace,  for  whatever  faith 
may  be,  it  is  by  no  means  righteousness  in  the 
original  sense  (in  the  sense  of  fulfilling  the 
law),  and  God,  accordingly,  out  of  grace 
reckons  something  for  righteousness  which  is 
not  righteousness  in  itself,  and  on  the  ground 
of  which  he  did  not,  therefore,  need  to  jus- 
tify:"] 


»  See  Andrew  Fuller's  "  Three  Conversations  [between 
'Peter,  James,  and  John'  (Booth,  Fuller,  and  Ryland)] 
on  Imputation,  Substitution,  and  Particular  Redemp- 
tion."—(F.) 

»As  Prof.  Shedd  remarks:  We  never  read  of  sin 


being  imputed  to  men  gratuitously,  by  way  of  favor, 
without  works,  or  according  to  God's  good  pleasure. 
"The  imputation  of  sin,  both  original  and  actual,  is 
according  to  debt  only."  So  eternal  life  is  a  free  gift ,  but 
eternal  death  is  "  wages."— (F.) 


106 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  IV. 


6  Even  as  David  also  descriljeth  the  blesseduess  of 
the  man,  uiito  whom  (jod  imputeth  righteousuess  with- 
out works, 

7  Saying,  Blessed  are  they  whose  iniquities  are  for- 
given, and  whose  sins  are  covered. 

8  Blessed  U  the  man  to  whom  the  Lord  will  not 
impute  siu. 


6  faith  is  reckoned  for  righteousness.  Even  as  David 
also  pronouuceth  blessing  upon  the  man.  unto  whom 
God    reckoneth    righteousuess   apart  from   woiks, 

7  Hayiny, 

Blessed  are  they  whose  iniquities  are  forgiven, 
And  whose  sius  are  covered. 

8  Blessed  is  the  man  to  whom  the  Lord  will  not 

reckon  sin. 


6.  Even  as  David  also.  The  case  of 
David,  too,  though  not  strictly  co-ordinate 
with  that  of  Abraham,  as  there  is  no  mention 
made  of  faith,  is  pertinent  in  this  respect,  that 
David  speaks  of  free  remission,  which  is  tanta- 
mount to  justification ;  for  there  is  no  nega- 
tive and  neutral  position  midway  between 
condemnation  and  jur-tification.  ["The appeal 
to  David  next  after  Abraham  was  peculiarly 
apposite,  because  Christ  was  and  was  called 
a  Son  of  David,  and  to  David  next  to  Abra- 
ham the  most  definite  promise  of  the  Messiah 
had  been  given."  (Philippi.)]  Describeth 
the  blesseduess  of  the  man.  More  liter- 
ally, speaks,  or  projiounces,  the  felicitation  of 
the  man.  ["Even  as  David  also  declareth 
the  man  blessed."  ("The  Five  Clergymen.")] 
The  verb  here  used  hardly  means  to  describe: 
it  is  the  word  commonly  translated  "to  say," 
the  same  that  is  used  in  ver.  3:  "  what  saith 
the  Scripture."  Neither  is  the  noun  used 
here  the  one  properly  equivalent  to  our  word 
"blessedness";  instead  of  being  derived  di- 
rectly from  the  adjective  so  often  translated 
"blessed"  or  "happy,"  it  is  derived  from  it 
indirectly,  through  an  intermediate  verb, 
which  means  "to  felicitate,"  or  "pronounce 
happy."  This  is  the  verb  which  in  Luke  1 : 
48  is  translated  "to  call  blessed,"  and  in 
James  5:  11  "to  count  happy."  These  are 
the  only  places  in  the  New  Testament  where 
it  is  used;  and  the  noun  here  translated 
'blessedness,'  like  the  English  word,  is  used 
in  only  one  other  place  besides  ver.  6  and  9 
of  this  chapter — namely,  in  Gal.  4:  15.  The 
meaning,  then,  is  not  to  describe  the  blessed- 
ness, but  to  utter  or  pronounce  the  felicita- 
tion, or  the  happiness;  and  this  is  precisely 
what  David  does  in  the  passage  quoted.  Unto 
whom  God  imputeth  righteousness  with- 
out works.     This  imputation  of  'righteous- 


ness without  works '  [that  is,  without  the  merit 
of  works],  though  not  expressed  in  the  passage 
quoted,  is  clearly  implied;  for  free  forgive- 
ness, and  non-imputation  of  sin,  is  gratuitous 
justification.  [Paul  has  nowhere  used  the 
precise  phrase:  God  imputes  to  us  the  right- 
eousness of  Christ  apart  from  works,  but  it 
amounts  to  the  same  thing  when  he  speaks  of 
the  righteousness  of  God  which  shall  be  ours 
through  faith  in  Jesus  Christ;  when  he 
asserts  that  we  are  justified  gratuitously  and 
by  grace  through  the  redemption  which  is  in 
Christ  Jesus;  that  "justification  of  life"  is 
through  the  righteous  act  and  obedience  of 
the  second  Adam;  that  our  faith  in  Christ, 
through  which  we  are  justified,  is  imputed  to 
us  for  righteousness;  that  Christ  is  the  end  of 
the  law  for  righteousness;  that  he  is  made 
unto  us  righteousness ;  and  that  we  become 
the  righteousness  of  God  in  him.  See  1  Cor. 
1:  30;  2  Cor.  5:  21.  Meyer  gives  this  as  the 
equivalent  of  the  last  two  references — namelj', 
"by  means  of  faith  we,  through  the  death  of 
Christ,  have  been  justified  before  God,"  and 
"In  his  atoning  death  our  justification  is 
grounded."  This  we  may  regard  as  imputed 
righteousness.] 

7,  8.  Blessed  are  they,  etc.  [More  liter- 
ally: happy  (are  the\')  whose  iniquities 
are  (were)  forgiven,  and  whose  sins 
are  (were)  covered.]  The  forgiveness  is 
here  represented  as  prior  to  and  causative  of 
the  happiness  experienced.^  These  expres- 
sions are  found  in  Ps.  32:  1,  2.  Our  English 
translation  of  the  Psalm  agrees  more  exactly 
with  the  Hebrew  than  the  version  of  the 
Seventy  here  [exactly]  quoted  does,  in  that 
it  employs,  like  the  Hebrew,  three  diflTerent 
words  to  express  sin.  In  this  triple  felicita- 
tion, sin  is  viewed  as  a  wrong  against  God 
(transgression)  which  needs  to  \)G^  forgiven, 


1  The  Revised  Version  renders  both  verbs  in  the 
present  tense,  as  though  they  were  gnomic  aorists. 
The  intensive  double  negative,  ov  \i.i\,  is  generally  used, 
as  here,  with  the  subjunctive  aorist,  and  regularly  re- 


fers to  the  future,  to  what  in  no  wise  will  or  should  take 
place.  (Winer,  p.  505.)  The  Greek  subjunctive  has  in 
itself  a  look  toward  the  future. — (F.) 


Ch.  IV.] 


ROMANS. 


107 


9  Cometh  this  blessedness  then  upon  the  circumcision 
oh///,  or  iij)ou  the  uncirciiiDcision  also?  lor  we  say  that 
faith  was  reclconcd  to  Abrahaiu  for  righteousness. 

10  How  was  it  then  reckoned?  when  he  was  in  cir- 
cumcision, or  in  uncircumcision?  Not  in  circumci- 
sion, but  in  uncircumcisiuu. 

11  And  be  received  the  sign  of  circumcision,  a  seal 


9  Is  this  blessing  then  pronounced  upon  the  circum- 
cision, or  ui)ijn  the  uncircumcision  also?  lor  we  say, 
To  Abraham   his  faith  was  reckoned  for  righleous- 

10  ness.  How  then  was  it  reckoned?  when  he  was  in 
circumcision,  or  in  uncircumcision  ?    Not  in  circuni- 

U  cisiou,  but  in  uncircumcision:  and  he  received  ihe 
sign  of  circumcision,  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of 


as  a  loathsome  thing  (sin)  which  needs  to  he 
covered,^  and  as  a  crime  (iniquit3-)  which 
needs  to  be  avenged  unless  some  satisfaction 
is  rendered  to  justice;  or,  to  express  substan- 
tially the  same  distinctions  more  brieflj',  sin 
is  represented  as  an  offense  against  Gods 
majesty,  his  purity,  and  his  justice.  This 
coiifirniiition  of  the  law  through  faith  (3:  si), 
in  ver.  1-8,  derives  peculiar  force  from  the 
cliaracter  of  the  two  persons  whom  the  apos- 
tle selects  as  illustrations.  Abraham  was  the 
great  progenitor  of  their  race,  whom  they 
proudly  called  their  father,  and  on  whom 
their  own  Scriptures  had  bestowed  the  pecu- 
liar honor  of  being  styled  'the  friend  of  God.' 
(a  chron.  20:  7;  isa. 41:  8.)  Compare  James  2:  23. 
David  was  their  mighty  king,  the  most  dis- 
tinguislied  ancestor  and  type  of  the  Messiah, 
t!ie  man  after  God's  own  heart,  (i  sam.is:  it.) 
Compare  Acts  13:  22.  If  these  two  most  re- 
nowned of  their  ancestors,  who  had  so  much 
to  glory  of,  renounced  all  pretense  of  merit 
by  works,  and  were  justified  before  God 
solely  by  faith,  what  higher  confirmation  of 
the  apostle's  doctrine  could  be  needed?  Surely 
they  could  not  claim  to  surpass  these  worthies 
in  merit,  nor  hope  to  succeed  where  these 
liad  failed.  [In  these  words  of  David  we 
have,  as  Godet  remarks,  the  negative  side  of 
justification,  the  evil  which  it  removes;  while 
in  regard  to  Abraham  it  was  only  the  positive 
side  which  was  under  treatment,  the  blessing 
it  confers.  Thus  it  is  that  the  two  pass^iges 
complete  one  another.] 

9.  Cometh  this  blessedness  (or,  felici- 
tnfinn)  then,  etc.  [An  inference  from  ver. 
3-9  in  the  form  of  an  inquiry.]  The  apostle 
blends  the  two  examples  intimately  together, 
and  with  good  reasons,  for  Abraham  was  un- 
questionably included  in  the  blessing  pro- 
nounced by  David,  and  David  was  no  loss 
unquestionablj'  included  among  those  justified 
by  faith  apart  from  works.  Yet  as  the  case 
of  Abraham  was  best  adapted  to  the  apostle's 
purpose,  partly  on   account  of  the   form  of 


expression  here  again  quoted,  and  partly  on 
account  of  the  date  of  his  circumcision,  he 
selects  the  example  of  Abraham  for  fuller 
development  in  what  follows.  It  will  be  ob- 
served that  the  words  'cometh'  and  'only' 
are  supplied  by  the  translators.  The  simple 
verb  is  might  answer  instead  of  the  first  [but 
the  "is  pronounced"  of  the  Ilevised  Version 
is  still  better;  see  ver.  6],  and  the  second  is 
clearly  implied  in  the  word  'also'  after  'un- 
circumcision.' For  we  say.  Tliis  expression 
implies  an  aflBrmative  answer  to  the  last  clause 
of  the  question — "yes,  upon  the  uncircum- 
cision, also" — as  is  fully  expressed  in  the 
similar  case  in  3:29.  Thus  the  'for'  intro- 
duces the  proof  of  that  implied  afiBrmative. 
[We  say  that  faith.  The  article  is  connected 
with  'faith '  in  the  Greek,  and  is  here  equiva- 
lent to  his  faith.] 

10.  How  Avas  it  then  reckoned?  In 
what  condition,  then,  was  he  when  it  was 
so  reckoned,  circumcised  or  uncircumcised? 
From  Gen.  15:6;  16:1-4,  16,  it  appears  that 
Abraham  was  said  to  have  been  justified  by 
faith  some  months,  at  least,  before  the  birth 
of  Ishmael,  and  that  he  was  eighty-six  j'ears 
old  when  Ishmael  was  born  ;  and  from  Gen. 
17:24,  that  he  was  ninety-nine  years  old  when 
he  was  circumcised.  His  "faith  was  reckoned 
to  him  for  righteousness,"  therefore  at  least 
thirteen  or  fourteen  years  ["perhaps  as  much 
as  twenty-five"  (Alford)]  before  he  received 
the  sign  of  circumcision.  ["Circumcision  was 
so  little  the  ground  of  justification  that  it  was 
rather  the  consequence  of  it."  (De  Wette.) 
"Abraham's  righteousness  through  faith  was 
attained  when  as  yet  there  was  no  distinction 
between  circumcised  and  uncircumcised,  and 
to  this  mode  of  becoming  just  before  God, 
independent  of  external  conditions,  Christi- 
anity, by  its  righteousness  from  faith,  leads 
back  again  and  continues  it."     (Me3'er.)] 

11.  The  sign  of  circumcision.  This  is 
what  is  called  the  genitive  of  apposition,  when 
two  words  thus  connected  bv  'of  relate  to 


1  In  the  Old  Testament  GJod  is  often  spoken  of  as 
covering  sins,  but  this  (quotation)  is  the  only  instance 
mentioned  in  the  New  Testament.    Augustine  says: 


"  If  God  covere<l  sins  he  was  unwilling  to  observe 
them,  and  if  unwilling  to  observe  he  was  unwilling 
to  punish."— (F.) 


108 


EOMANS. 


[Ch.  IV. 


of  the  righteousness  of  the  faith  which  he  had  yet  being  |       the  faith  which  he  had  while  he  was  in  uncircumci- 


the  same  thing:  He  received  circumcision  as 
a  sign.  See  other  examples  of  the  same  nature 
in  2  Cor.  1 :  22 ;  5:5;  Eph.  6 :  14,  etc.  [Meyer 
thinl^s  that  with  this  sense  the  word  'sign' 
should  have  the  article.  His  interpretation 
is:  "A  sign  which  took  place  through  cir- 
cumcision," the  genitive  defining  the  sign 
more  precisely.  Winer  and  De  AVette  regard 
it  as  simply  genitive  of  apposition,  like  the 
phrase :  Cities  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah. 
(2  Peter 2: 6.)  On  the  absence  of  the  article  be- 
fore the  word  'sign,'  see  2:6.]  A  seal  of 
the  righteousness  of  the  faith.  Setting 
the  seal  to  a  documei.t  is  the  final  act  of  its 
confirmation.  So  circumcision  is  represented 
as  a  token  or  seal  of  God's  covenant  with 
Abraham.  (Gen.  i7:ii.)  [The  word  seal  in  con- 
nection with  circumcision  is  used  by  Paul 
alone,  and  only  in- this  place.  In  Genesis, 
circumcision  is  called  the  token  of  the  cove- 
nant between  God  and  Abraham.  Kegarded 
as  a  "seal,"  it  seems  designed  to  certify  the 
reality  and  worth  of  Abraham's  faifrh-right- 
eousness.  It  has  nothing  to  do  directly  with 
attesting  or  confirming  the  righteousness  of 
the  faith  of  any  other  individual.  If  every 
circumcised  Jew  who  has  lived  from  the  days 
of  Abraham  until  the  present  time  were  desti- 
tute of  the  righteousness  of  faith,  still  the  sign 
they  bore  in  their  flesh  would  be  a  "seal  of 
the  righteousness  of  the  faith  which  Abraham 
had  while  he  was  in  uncircumcision."  Dr. 
Hodge  says  that  "all  the  Jews  were  professors 
of  the  true  religion,  and  constituted  the  visible 
church,  in  which,  by  divine  appointment, 
their  children  were  included.  This  is  the 
broad  and  enduring  basis  of  infant  church 
membersliip."  "We  grant  that  this  argument 
from  circumcision  will  ever  be  the  principal 
one  for  infant  baptism.  But  how  silent  the 
apostle  is  as  to  the  virtual  transference  of  this 
chief  rite  of  Judaism  into  the  pale  of  Christi- 
anity !  Was  it  because  of  the  severity  of  his 
contest  with  Jewish  legalism,  which  specially 
centred  itself  around  this  rite?  Yet  how 
easily  he  might  have  allayed — certainly  to  a 
great  extent — the  animosities  and  prejudices 
of  these  zealots  for  circumcision  had  he  at 
once  and  plainly  assured  them  that  infant 
baptism,  by  divine  appointment,  was  to  take 
the  place  of  circumcision.     Let  us  consider, 


for  a  moment,  how  in  this  country  infant 
baptism  (of  females  as  well  as  males)  would 
be  paralleled  with  Jewish  circumcision. 
First,  and  most  essential  of  all,  we  must 
have  an  eminently  pious  forefather — a  right- 
eous, national  founder.  We  have  a  Wash- 
ington, who  was,  at  least,  remarkable  for  liis 
unselfishness  and  his  integrity,  willing  to  be- 
come an  humble,  private  citizen  after  winning 
the  laurels  of  a  great  conqueror,  which  would 
seemingly  entitle  him  to  become  the  nation's 
perpetual  dictator.  God,  for  his  great  integ- 
rity, makes  a  special  covenant  with  him  and 
with  his  people,  assuring  him  that  he  should 
be  the  father  of  a  mighty  nation,  and  that 
He  would  be  in  a  special  manner  a  God  to 
him  and  to  them  forever.  In  token  of  this 
covenant,  he  bids  Washington  baptize  him- 
self, and  all  the  children  he  might  have,  and 
all  his  slaves,  and  also  gives  command  that 
henceforth  every  infant  born  ,in  the  nation 
should  be  baptized  on  the  eighth  day  after 
its  birth,  and  that  every  immigrant  who 
wished  to  become  an  American  citizen 
should  also  be  baptized  ;  and,  finally,  that 
every  unbaptized  person  throughout  the  land 
in  all  coming  generations  should  be  cut  off 
from  his  (or  her)  people.  This  would  be  cir- 
cumcision-baptism, and  our  dutj'  as  parents 
in  this  matter  would  be  very  plain.  In  this 
kind  of  baptism  we  have  a  "seal"  (an  invisi- 
ble one,  however)  of  the  Tightness  of  the  in- 
tegrity of  Washington  before  he  was  baptized, 
and  every  citizen  of  this  country-,  though  he 
be  a  traitor  at  heart,  yet  bears  this  (invisible) 
seal  of  the  uprightness  of  Washington.  But 
is  such  a  national  church  (?)  as  this  the  model 
for  a  church  of  Christ?  See  further  on  this 
subject,  chapter  26  of  the  writer's  "Studies 
on  Baptism;"  also  Dr.  Arnold's  excellent 
remarks  in  Appendix  A  of  this  volume.] 
Which  he  had  yet  being  uncircumcised. 
The  pronoun  'which'  here  (standing  for  the 
equally  ambiguous  Greek  article)  may  refer 
to  either  of  the  words  'faith  'or  'righttous- 
ness.'  The  former  reference  is'  the  more 
natural,  and  seems  to  be  confirmed  hy  the 
intimate  connection  between  faith  and  uncir- 
cumcision in  the  following  clause,  and  also  in 
the  next  verse.  But  if  the  pronoun  (or,  in 
Greek,  the  article)  be  referred  to  the  word 


Ch.  IV.] 


ROMANS. 


109 


uncircumcised:  that  he  might  be  the  father  of  all  them 
that  bulieve,  though  they  be  not  circumcised;  that 
righteousness  might  be  imputed  unto  them  also: 

12  And  the  father  of  circumcision  to  them  who  are 
not  of  the  circumcision  only,  but  who  also  walk  iu  the 
Steps  of  that  faith  of  our  father  Abraham,  which  ke 
had  being  yet  uncircumcised. 


sion  :  that  he  might  be  the  father  of  all  them  that  l)e- 
lieve,  though  they  be  in  uncircumcision,  that  right- 

12  eousness  might  be  reckoned  unto  tlieui  ;  and  the 
father  of  circumcision  to  them  who  not  only  are  of 
the  circumcision,  but  who  also  walk  in  the  steps  of 
that  faith  of  our  father  Abraham  which   he  had  iu 

13  uncircumcision.    For  not  t  through  the  law  was  the 


1  Or,  through  law. 


'righteousness,'  which  Alford  prefers,  as  more 
relevant  to  the  apostle's  argument,  then  the 
article  before  the  word  'faith'  should  be  can- 
celed, and  we  should  read :  A  seal  of  the 
righteousness  of  faith  [equivalent  here  to 
faith  righteousness]  which  he  had  yet  being 
uncircntncised.  The  former  construction  (de- 
fended by  De  "Wette  and  Me^'er)  is,  however, 
preferred.  That  he  might  be  the  father, 
etc.  [In  order  that  he  might  be,  etc.  The 
present  infinitive,  in  order  to  be,  or,  to  his 
being,  is  best  rendered  by  the  auxiliary 
'miglit,'  though  the  present,  '  may  be'  would 
well  express  its  f^rce.  Prof.  Boise  remarks 
that  the  placing  the  subject  directly  after  the 
infinitive  instead  of  before  it  is  especially 
frequent  in  the  New  Testament.  (Ecumenius 
observes  that  "as  those  in  uncircumcision 
have  not  Abraham  for  their  father,  for  the 
sole  reason  that  he  believed  in  an  uncircum- 
cised state,  unless  they  are  also  imitators  of 
his  faith,  so  neither  without  this  condition 
shall  they  of  the  circumcision  have  him  for 
their  father  from  the  mere  circumstance  of 
]i  is  having  been  circumcised."]  The  fact  that 
Abraham  was  declared  to  be  justified  by  faith 
before  he  was  circumcised  gives  believing 
Gentiles  an  equal  title  with  believing  Jews  to 
be  called  his  children,  and  to  inherit,  as  his 
spiritual  heirs,  justification  by  faith.  [The 
full  force  of  the  original  is:  Abraham  received 
this  sign  and  seal,  in  order  that  (by  divine 
arrangement  and  purpose)  he  might  be  the 
father  of  all  who  believe  through  (in  a  state 
of)  uncircumcision.  Compare  2:27.  The 
final  'that'  is  probably  to  be  connected  with 


even  among  the  Jews  (1  Mace.  2:52),  'Philo 
de  Abrahanio.'  "] 

12.  AntI  {that  he  might  he,  is  to  be  sujiplied 
from  ver.  11)  the  father  of  circumcision 

(not  to  all  the  circumcised,  but  only)  to  them 
who  are  not  of  the  circumcision  only,  but 
who  also  walk  in  the  steps  of  that  faith  of 
our  father  .\braham,  which  he  had  being 
yet  uncircumcised.  All  seems  plain  here; 
but  there  is  a  grammatical  diiEculty  in  the 
original,  arising  from  the  article  preceding  the 
participle  in  the  clause  translated,  'but  who 
also  walk,'  etc.  We  should  be  obliged,  in  strict 
accurac\%  to  translate  as  follows :  to  them  who 
are  not  of  the  circumcision  only,  but  also  to 
them\i\\o  walk,  etc.  Some  meet  this  diflSculty 
by  saying  that  Paul  wrote  inaccurately  here 
through  negligence,  others  bj'  supposing  that 
the  text  has  been  corrupted  in  transcribing, 
of  which  there  is'  no  documentary  evidence. 
We  leave  the  diflSculty  with  only  this  remark, 
that  there  is  no  reasonable  doubt  that  our 
English  translation  expresses  with  substantial 
accurac}-,  the  apostle's  thought.'  [Godet 
thinks  to  avoid  the  difficulty  by  rendering 
the  first  article  (rois)  as  a  pronoun,  and  the 
second  as  a  definite  article— thus:  those  who 
are  not  only  of  the  circumcision,  but  who 
are  also,  at  the  same  time  the  (individuals)' 
or  the  walkers,  etc.  The  application  of  the 
term  walking  to  moral  conduct  is  quite  a  pecu- 
liarity with  Paul.  See  notes  on  6 :  4.  'Steps' 
is  in  the  dative  of7inrm.,  or  rule.  (Buttmann  : 
manner.)  Literally,  it  reads  :  those  vialking 
in  (or  by)  the  footsteps  of  the  in-imcircumci- 
sion-fnith  of  our  father  Abraham.     "Hence." 


believing,  thus:  Of  all  them  who  are  believ-  j  says  Godet,  "it  follows  that  it  is  not,  properly 


ing,  ...  in  order  that  righteousness  might 
be  reckoned  unto  them.  The  spiritual  father- 
hood of  Abraham  is  referred  to  bj'  John  the 
Baptist  and  by  Christ  himself.  (Matt. .3 : 9;  Lakes: 
8;  j,.hn8:39.)  The  whole  lifeof  this  "father  of 
believers,"  says  Tholuck,  "displayed  an  ex- 
traordinary strength  of  faith.  .  .  .  On  account 


speaking,  for  the  Gentile  believers  to  enter  by 
the  gate  of  the  Jews,  but  for  Jewish  believers 
to  enter  by  the  gate  of  the  Gentiles."  "If 
these  apostolic  propositions,"  says  Dr.  J.  B. 
Thomas,  in  his  "Mould  of  Doctrines,"  p.  82, 
"be  not  seen  at  once  clearly  to  obliterate  the 
foundations  of  the  national,  the  hereditary, 


<'f  this  persevering  faith,  he  is  highly  extolled  |  and  the  sacramental  theories  of  the  church,  it 

1  See  Appendix  A. 


110 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  IV. 


13  For  the  promise,  that  he  should  be  the  heir  of  the 
•world,  was  not  to  Abraham,  or  to  his  seed,  through  the 
law,  but  lliroiigh  the  righteousness  of  faith. 

14  For  if  tlie}'  which  are  of  the  law  be  heirs,  faith  is 
made  void,  aud  tlie  promise  made  of  none  effect. 

15  Because  the  law  worketh  wrath:  for  where  no  law 
is,  there  is  no  transgression. 


promise  to  Abraham  or  to  his  seed,  that  he  should 
be   heir  of  tlie  world,  but  through   the   righteous- 

14  ness  of  faith.     P'or  if  they  who  are  of  the  law  be 
heirs,  faitli  is  made  void,  and  the  promise  is  made 

15  of  none  effect ;    for  the  law  worketh  wrath ;   but 


would  be  vain  to  seek  further  to  elaborate  or 
emphasize  them."] 

13.  If  those  who  believe  are  Abraham's 
seed,  then  his  promised  inheritance  is  theirs. 
The  promise,  that  he  should  be  the  heir 
of  the  world.  We  do  not  read  any  explicit 
promise  of  this  sort,  as  given  either  to  Abra- 
ham or  to  his  seed.  For  'the  heir  of  the 
world '  is  too  broad  an  expression  to  be  limited 
to  the  land  of  Canaan  ;  and,  besides  this,  the 
land  of  Canaan  was  never  promised  to  be- 
lieving Gentiles,  who  are  here  plainly  reck- 
oned as  the  seed  of  Abraham.  How,  then,  are 
Abraham  and  his  seed  the  promised  heirs  of 
the  world?  It  was  promised  to  Abraham, 
that  his  seed  should  be  as  the  stars  of  heaven 
(Gen.  15:  s)  ;  that  he  should  be  a  father  of  many 
nations  (Qen.  i7  :  5) ;  that  in  him  and  in  his 
seed  all  nations  should  be  blessed  (Gen.  12 :  3; 
18:18);  believers  in  Christ  are  his  seed  (Rom. 
4:  11;  Gal.  3:  29);  and  they  shall  possess  all 
nations,  and  shall  inherit  the  world  (Dan.  7: 
27;  Matt.  5:  5;  1  Cor.  3:  22);  again,  Christ  is  pre- 
eminently the  seed  of  Abraham  (oai.  s:  le)  ; 
he  shall  possess  all  the  world  (ps.  2;  7,  8;  Dan. 
7:U;Rev.ii:  15).  The  promise  will  be  verified, 
therefore,  both  figuratively  and  explicitly, 
in  the  dominion  of  all  nations  given  to  be- 
lievers; and  literally  and  explicitly  in  the 
dominion  of  the  world  given  to  Christ.  The 
expression  '  heir  of  the  world  '  derives  pecu- 
liar emphasis  from  the  fact  that  among  the 
Hebrews  things  received  by  inheritance 
were  alone  inalienable;  hence  the  frequency 
with  which  any  firm  and  perpetual  posses- 
sion is  called  an  inheritance.  [The  promise 
— namelj',  that  Abraham  should  be  heir  of 
the  world  was  not  through  the  law— that 
is,  it  came  not  through  the  medium  of  the 
law,  nor  did  it  rest  on  the  law  as  its  ground. 
But  the  promise,  like  the  inheritance,  was 
a  gift  of  grace  (Gai.3:i8),  and  it  was  made 
to  Abraham  through  (the  medium  of)  the 
righteousness  of  faith.    The  declaration  of 


Abraham's  righteousness  through  faith  is  re- 
corded in  Gen.  15:  6,  but  the  promise  in  sub- 
stance was  made  to  him  previously,  and  was 
renewed  after  this  time.  He  had  the  right- 
eousness of  faith  before  its  declaration  was 
made.^  Philippi  thinks  that  by  the  use  of 
present  tense  the  inheritance  of  the  world  is 
represented  as  a  present  possession  to  Abra- 
ham.] 

14.  He  here  makes  the  supposition  which 
was  denied  in  ver.  13,  and  shows  that  its  con- 
sequence would  be  of  such  a  nature  as  to 
confirm  that  denial.  If  they  which  {u-/to) 
are  of  the  law.  [On  the  force  of  this  of,  see 
2:  8.]  If  they  who  rely  upon  their  works 
are  heirs,  the  covenant  of  faith  is  made  void, 
is  broken  ;  faith  has  been  emptied  of  its  signifi- 
cance, and  the  promise  has  been  virtually 
abolished.  If  the  heirship  is  b^'  merit,  it  can 
dispense  with  faith  and  promise.  The  apos- 
tle uses  here  very  fit  and  forcible  words. 
[How  the  promise  is  made  of  none  effect  is 
told,  as  De  "Wette  and  others  think,  in  the 
next  verse — to  wit,  "the  law  which  produces 
wrath  excludes  grace,  and  therewith  the 
promise."  "With  the  word  2^'>'omise  the 
apostle  always  associates  the  notion  of  the 
spontaneous, ?»iconditioned  promise  of  grace." 
(Philippi.)  The  inheritance  through  prom- 
ise was  bestowed  graciously,  as  a  free  gift. 
(Gal. 3:  18.)  If  inheritance  is  by  the  law,  then, 
as  Godet  says,  "it  is  all  over  at  a  stroke  both 
with  faith  and  with  the  promise ;  with  faith, 
that  is  to  say,  with  the  hope  of  that  final  her- 
itage, since  the  realization  of  that  expectation 
would  be  bound  to  a  condition  which  sinful 
man  could  not  execute,  the  fulfillment  of  the 
law,  and  since  faith  would  thus  be  deprived 
of  its  object;  and  next,  with  the  promise 
itself;  for,  an  impossible  condition  being 
attached  to  it,  it  would  thereby  be  paralyzed 
in  its  eflPects."] 

15.  Because  the  law  worketh  wrath. 
The  propriety  of  the  reasoning — 'because,'  or 


1  The  neuter  article  which  heads  the  clause,  'that  he    pare  ver.  16,  18),  thus  giving  the  verb  greater  promi- 
Bhould  be  the  heir,'  does  not  properly  belong  to  the  i  nence.    The  clause  stands  in  apposition  with  ^>-owi>. 
clause  as  a  whole,  as  iu  8  :  26,  but  to  the  iB.luitive  (com-  |  — (F.) 


Ch.  IV.] 


ROMANS. 


Ill 


If.  Therefore  it  is  of  faith,  that  it  might  he  by  grace; 
to  thecmi  the  proiuise  luiglit  be  sure  to  all  the  seed; 
not  to  that  ouly  which  is  of  the  law,  but  to  that  also 
which  is  of  the  faith  of  Abraham ;  who  is  the  lather 
of  us  all, 

rather/o; — is  seen  in  the  natural  antithesis 
between  promise  and  law;  the  one  founded 
on  grace,  and  the  other  on  justice,  the  one 
giving  freely,  and  the  other  exacting  sternly  ; 
so  that  they  mutually  exclude  eacli  other  as 
grounds  of  inheritance.  'The  law  worketh 
■wrath.'  [Of  course,  then,  it  cannot  confer 
the  inheritance  of  promise.  The  law  worketh 
out  wratii  til  rough  its  transgression,  and  hence 
this  wrath  is  not  that  of  man  against  God, 
but  that  of  God  visited  upon  man  on  account 
of  his  transgressions.]!  For  where  no  law 
is.  [But,  instead  of  'for,'  is  the  reading 
adopted  by  Laciimann,  Tischendorf,  and  Tre- 
gelies,  according  to  preponderating  evidence. 
The  verse  will  then  read:  "  But  where  there 
is  no  law,  neither  is  there  transgression." 
— A.  11.]  There  is  no  transgression. 
["Namely,  wliicli  excites  the  wratli  of  God, 
the  Lawgiver."  (Meyer.)]  We  need  notsay, 
with  Beza,  "the  vcufWng  oug ht  to  be,  'where 
law  is,  there  transgression  is'  "  ;  but  we  may 
say  that  this  negative  axiom  implies,  in  this 
connection,  the  corresponding  positive.  If 
there  vjere  no  law,  there  could  he  no  trans- 
gression; but  there  is  transgression,  as  all 
men  know,  and  so  the  law  may  be  said  to 
work  wrath,  whicli  is  inseparably'  linked  to 
transgression.  [Elsewhere  the  apostle  de- 
scribes how  sin  as  a  principle  (ivofiia)  is  aug- 
mented into  "transgression"  by  the  law, 
which  is  the  "power  of  sin."  The  wrath  of 
God,  as  stated  in  1:  18,  seq.,  is  due  to  the 
offenses  even  of  the  Gentiles  who  have  not 
the  law,  but  much  more  heavily  must  it  rest 
upon  those  who  transgress  God's  revealed 
will.  "Thus,"  says  Philippi,  "the  divine 
wrath  and  the  punishment  (xdAaTis)  annexed 
thereto,  has  its  differences  of  degree."] 

16.  Therefore  of  faith.  ['Therefore' 
(Sia  toOto),  on  account  of.  This  usually  has  ref- 
erence to  something  preceding,  here  to  ver. 
14,  15,  because  not  from  law,  therefore  from 
grace.  Alford,  however,  seems  to  refer  it  to 
a  reason  which  follows.]  What  is  the  subject 
here?     What  is  by  faith?    The  inheritance 


where  there  is  no  law,  neither  is  there  transgression. 
16  For  this  cause  it  is  of  faitli,  that  il  mii;/  h-^  accuriJiug 
to  grace;  to  the  end  that  the  promise  may  lie  sure 
to  all  the  seed;  not  to  that  only  which  is  of  the  law, 
but  to  that  also  which  is  of  the  faith  of  Abraham, 


seems  to  be  the  most  natural  subject.  That 
it  might  [through  the  divine  i)urp()se]  be  by 
grace — wliich  it  could  not  be  if  of  works. 
['Grace'  here  denies  tiie  meritoriousness,  not 
only  of  works,  but  of  faith.  If  believing  in 
Christ,  or  faith  in  Clirist,  is  in  any  sense  a 
work  or  exercise  of  the  human  mind  and 
heart,  it  is  here  denied  to  be  the  meritorious 
cause,  orground,of  our  justification.  "Faith," 
says  Calvin,  "we  compare  to  a  vessel;  for, 
unless  we  come  empty  with  the  mouth  of  our 
soul  open  to  implore  the  grace  of  Christ,  we 
cannot  receive  Christ.  Wlience  it  may  be  in- 
ferred that  we  do  not  detract  from  Christ  the 
power  of  justifying,  when  we  teach  that  faith 
receives  him  before  it  receives  his  righteous- 
ness. Nevertheless,  I  cannot  admit .  .  .  that 
faith  is  Christ;  as  though  an  earthen  vessel 
were  a  treasure  because  gold  is  concealed  in 
it.  For  faith,  although  intrinsically  it  is  of 
no  dignity  or  value,  justifies  us  by  an  appli- 
cation of  Christ  just  as  a  vessel  full  of  money 
constitutes  a  man  rich."]  To  the  end  the 
promise  might  be  sure  to  all  the  seed. 
[The  apostle  here  indicates  the  purpose  of 
divine  grace.  In  Paul's  view,  as  Olshausen 
remarks,  "Everything  which  depends  upon 
the  decision,  faithfulness,  and  constancy  of 
such  an  irresolute  and  wavering  being  as  man 
is  extremely  uncertain.  .  .  .  The  blessedness 
of  the  man  is  certain,  only  because  God  has 
promised  it  and  firmly  intends  it,  and  he 
only  who  believes  in  this  decided  will  of  God 
has  this  salvation  also  wrought  in  him."] 
The  emphatic  words  here  are  'sure,'  in  con- 
trast with  made  void  of  ver.  14,  and  'all,'  as 
explained  in  the  following  words:  not  only 
to  Jews,  but  also  to  Gentiles,  not  only  to  the 
seed  in  the  natural  sense,  but  also  to  the  seed 
in  the  spiritual  sense.  [Abraham  is  therefore 
the  spiritual  father  of  all  who  are  spiritually 
circumcised,  of  all  who  are  Jews  inwardly— 
that  is,  of  all  true  believers.  (2:  29;  Phii.3;  s.) 
Chri.st  is  the  true  seed  of  Abraham  to  whom 
the  promises  were  made,  the  seed  through 
whom   all    nations  of   the  earth   should    be 


1  ex^pa,  enmity  (against  God),  is  ascribed  by  Paul  to 
guilty  men,  but  never  opyi),  wrath  (towards  God).  This, 
however,  is  often  predicated  of  God  in   his  relation 


toward  man.  See  1 :  18;  2:  5,8;  3:5;  5:9;  9:  22;  Eph. 
2:  3;  5:  6-  Col.  3:  6;  1  Thess.  1:  10;  2:  16;  5:  9,  etc.— 
(F.) 


112 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  IV. 


17  (As  it  is  written,  I  have  made  thee  a  father  of  many 
nations,)  before  him  wtiom  he  believed,  emn  God,  who 
quickeueth  the  dead,  and  calleth  those  things  whicli  be 
Hot  as  though  they  were: 

IS  Who  against  hope  believed  in  hope,  that  he  might 


17  who  is  the  father  of  us  all  (as  it  is  written,  A  father 
of  many  nations  have  I  made  thee)  before  him  whom 
he  believed,  even  God,  who  quickeneth  the  dead, 
and  calleth  the  things  that  are  not,  as  though  tljey 

18  were.     Who  in   hope  believed  against  hope,  to  the 


blessed,  and  we,  by  believing  in  Christ,  and 
by  virtue  of  a  living  fellowship  with  him, 
thus  become  sons  of  Abraham  and  heirs 
according  to  promise.] 

17.  (As  it  is  written,  I  have  made  thee 
a  father  of  many  nations.^  This  paren- 
thesis confirms  the  last  clause  of  ver.  16  by 
quoting  Gen.  17:  5  [exactly  after  the  LXX], 
and  so  quoting  It  as  to  imply  not  only  a  com- 
parison, or  analogy,  between  the  natural  pos- 
terity', composed  of  many  nations,  and  the 
spiritual  posterity,  composed  of  all  believers; 
but  so  as  to  imply  that  the  prophecy  was 
directly  applicable  to  the  latter.  'I  have 
made  thee'  [or,  have  appointed  thee].  He 
was  already,  in  God's  sight,  a  'father  of 
many  nations,"  though  not,  in  point  of  fact, 
until  long  after.  Before  him  whom  he 
believed.  This  clause  is  to  be  connected 
directly  with  the  closing  words  of  ver.  16, 
'who  is  the  father  of  us  all.'  ["A  vivid  reali- 
zation," says  Meyer,  "of  the  believing  patri- 
arch as  if  h^  were  standing  there  as  father  of 
us  all  before  the  face  of  God."  Some,  as 
Bengel,  Philippi,  Godet,  think  this  before, 
etc.,  should  be  connected  with  a  verb  in  the 
past  tense,  and  not  with  'is  father,'  etc., 
which  refers  to  the  time  of  Paul's  writing. 
Philippi  supplies:  and  as  such  he  was  ap- 
pointed, or,  and  thus  he  .stood  there,  etc., 
deriving  these  phrases  from  the  preceding 
verb:  'I  have  made.'  Our  Common  and 
Revised  Versions  regard  the  relative  as  in  the 
genitive  by  attraction  to  the  case  of  its  ante- 
cedent, but  this  attract'on  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment occurs  only  with  verbs  that  govern  the 
accusative,  and  to  believe  (irKnevm)  is  not  fol- 
lowed by  the  accusative  of  person.  Hence 
Winer,  Meyer,  Philippi  resolve  this  phrase 
thus:  before  God  (before)  whom,  in  whose 
sight,  he  believed.  "In  this  verb  the  faith 
of  Abraliam  is  again  made  prominent,  in 
order  to  intimate  afresh  how  this  alone  medi- 
ated the  true  spiritual  and  universal  father- 
hood of  Abraham."   (Philippi.)]  'Who  quick- 


eneth the  dead.  In  allusion  to  the  advanced 
age  of  Abraham  and  Sarah.  Compare  ver. 
19  [and  still  primarily  referring,  we  think,  to 
the  literal  dead,  as  a  "standing  characteristic 
of  the  divine  omnipotence."  Compare  Deut. 
32:  39;  1  Sam.  2:  6;  "Wisd.  ofSol.  16:13;  John 
5 :  21 ;  2  Cor.  1 :  9 ;  1  Tim.  6 :  13,  etc.  Meyer : 
"  'Who  quickeneth  the  dead  and  calleth  the 
non-existent  as  though  it  were,'  and  certainly, 
therefore,  can  quicken  the  decayed  powers  of 
procreation  and  dispose  of  generations  not  yet 
in  existence."]  And  calleth  those  things 
Avhich  be  not  as  though  they  were.  That 
is,  Isaac,  and  Abraham's  posterity  in  general. 
[Meyer  translates  and  comments  thus:  "'who 
ulters  his  disposing  decree  over  that  which 
does  not  exist,  equally  as  over  the  existing.' 
What  a  lofty  expression  of  all-commanding 
power!  And  how  thoroughly  in  harmony 
with  the  then  position  of  Abraham  1  For,  as 
he  stood  before  God  and  believed  (Gen.i5:6), 
God  had  just  shown  him  the  stars  of  heaven 
with  the  promise:  'so  shall  thy  seed  be.'  So 
that  God  hereby  issued  his  potent  summons 
(so  shall  it  be)  to  something  that  was  not  (the 
seed  of  Abraham)  as  though  it  had  been." 
Alford  makes  this  calling  to  mean  speaking 
of.  (»:  V.)  Philippi,  like  Meyer,  regards  it  as 
equivalent  to  issuing  commands.]*  The  re- 
mainder of  the  chapter  is  devoted  to  an  enco- 
mium on  Abraham,  the  father  and  pattern  of 
believers. 

18.  Who  against  hope  [where  there  was 
nothing  to  hope  for  (De  Wette)]  believed  in 
hope  [on  the  ground  of  hopel.  Who  hope- 
fully believed  in  God,  contrary  to  all  human 
hope.  Pious  trust  in  God  shines  brightest 
when  all  human  hope  is  quenched.  [Chrys- 
ostom  :  "  Past  hope  of  man,  in  hope  of  God." 
Bengel:  "He  believed  in  the  hope  of  the 
promise  against  the  hope  of  reason."  Meyer: 
"Abraham's  faith  was  opposed  to  hope  in  its 
objective  reference,  and  yet  not  despairing, 
but  rather  based  on  hope  in  its  subjective 
reference — a  significant  oxj-moron."]     That 


1  The  Greek  has  6ti  as  a  part  of  the  quotation.  As  a 
causal  conjunction  it  might  be  rendered,  for  I  have 
made  thee,  etc. — (F.) 

2De  Wette  and  others,  taking  ws  in  the  sense  of  cis. 


refer  it  to  God's  creative  power.  The  force  of  the  sub- 
jective negative  M"?  is  thus  expressed  by  Godet:  "He 
calls  as  being  in  existence  what  he  knows  himself  to  be 
non-existent."— (F.) 


Ch.  IV.] 


ROMANS. 


113 


become  the  father  of  many  nations,  according  to  that 
which  was  spoken,  So  shall  tliy  seed  he. 

19  And  Ijeing  not  weak  in  iaitli,  he  considered  not 
)iis  own  body  now  dead,  when  he  was  about  a  hundred 
years  old,  neither  yet  the  deadness  of  Sarah's  wouib: 


end  that  he  might  become  a  father  of  many  nations, 
according  to  that  wliich  had  l)een  spoken,  So  shall 
19  thy  seed  be.  And  wilhotil  being  weakened  in  faith 
hecousidered  hisown  body  '  now  as  good  as  dead  (he 
being  about  a  hundred  years  old),  and  the  deadness 


1  Many  BDcient  authorities  omit  now. 


he  might  become  the  father  of  many 
nations.  [The  Greek  word  for  father  lias 
liere  no  article,  and  the  Revised  Version  is 
therefore  correct,  'a  father.']  These  words, 
alike  in  the  original  and  in  the  English, 
admit  of  two  interpretations.  They  may 
mean  (a),  he  believed  that  he  should  become, 
which  makes  his  becoming  the  fatherof  many 


Gen.  15:  5  more  fully  expresses,  as  numerous, 
or  rather  innumerable,  as  the  stars  of  heaven. 
"And  he  brought  him  forth  abroad,  and  .said, 
Look  now  toward  heaven,  and  tell  (that  is, 
count)  the  stars  if  thou  be  able  to  number 
them;  and  he  said  unto  him:  So  shall  thy 
seed  be."  [Paul,  according  to  Calvin,  "de- 
signedly adduced  this  quotation  incomplete. 


nations  the  direct  object  of  his  faith,  the  thing    in  order  to  stimulate  us  to  read  the  Scrip- 


which  he  believed ;  or  they  may  mean  (6),  he 
believed,  in  order  that  he  might  become,  his 
believing  was  a  necessary  condition  of  his  be- 
coming. This  last  sense  of  the  words  is  pre- 
ferred, as  being  the  more  natural  construction 
of  the  expression  in  the  original  text.  The 
first  view,  however,  is  advocated  by  Stu- 
art, and  several  able  German  commentators 
[among  whom  we  may  mention  De  Wette]. 
It  is  not  to  be  understood,  however,  that 
Abraham  believed  because  he  knew  that  his 
believing  was  an  indispensable  condition  of 
his  becoming  the  father  of  many  nations:  in 
order  that,  alwaj's  implies  an  intelligent  de- 
sign on  the  part  of  the  Divine  Disposer  [see 
on  3:  4,  and  Winer  p.  458],  but  does  not 
riccessarily  imply  a  conscious  purpose  on  the 
part  of  the  hummi  actor ;  and  this  distinction 
is  of  great  importance  to  the  right  under- 
standing of  many  clauses  which  are  intro- 
duced by  the  formula,  "in  order  that,"  or 
some  equivalent  expression.  In  reference  to 
the  ambiguity  here,  so  exactlj'  the  same  in 
the  original  Greek  and  in  the  English  trans- 
lation, it  is  not  out  of  place  to  remark,  that  it 
is  a  rare  excellence  in  a  translation  when  it 
can  successfully  transfer  a  doubtful  meaning 
from  one  language  to  another.  This  remark 
applies,  of  course,  onlj'  to  passages  where,  in 
the  judgment  of  competent  scholars,  there  is 
a  real  uncertainty  in  the  meaning  of  the  orig- 
inal. In  every  other  case,  an  ambiguity  in  a 
translation  is  a  serious  defect.  The  last  clause 
of  Heb.  5:  7  presents  another  instance  of  a 
happy  transference  of  an  ambiguity  from  the 
Greek  to  the  English,  although  there  is  per- 
haps less  real  doubt  as  to  the  true  meaning  of 
the  original  there  than  there  is  here.  So 
shall  thy  seed  be— that  is,  as  the  context  in 


tures."] 

19.  Being  not  weak  in  faith.  [The  force 
of  the  clause  may  be  expressed  thus:  because 
he  was  not  weak,  etc.]  By  a  figure  of  speech, 
which  is  the  opposite  of  hyperbole  or  "exag- 
geration," the  apostle  here  saj's  less  than 
he  might  truly  have  said.  He  might  truly 
have  said,  "being  exceedingly  strong,"  in- 
stead of  saying,  "  being  not  weak."  But  this 
way  of  speaking  which  he  here  uses  is  often 
more  forcible  than  the  opposite  figure,  as  this 
excites  the  imagination  to  fill  out  the  con- 
tracted idea,  while  the  opposite  figure  tempts 
the  critical  faculty  to  abate  something  from 
the  magnified  expression.  It  would  be  well 
for  enthusiastic  speakers  and  writers  to  bear 
this  principle  in  mind.  That  Abraham's 
faith,  instead  of  being  weak,  was  remarkably 
strong,  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  he  con- 
sidered not  his  own  body  noAv  dead,  but 
believed  God's  promise,  in  spite  of  that  con- 
sideration— that  is,  though  he  was  well  aware 
of  the  natural  obstacle,  in  the  bodily  condition 
of  both  himself  and  his  wife,  he  did  not  regard 
that  circumstance  as  any  valid  objection  to 
the  fulfillment  of  God's  promise,  that  he 
should  liave  a  numerous  oflTspring.  When  he 
was  about  a  hundred  years  old.  [Ben- 
gel  remarks  that  after  Shem  we  read  of  no 
one  one  hundred  years  old  who  begat  chil- 
dren. (Gen.  11.)  He  also  says  that  Abraham's 
renewed  bodily  vigor  remained  even  with  his 
marriage  with  Keturah.]  It  appears  from 
Gen.  18:  1,  that  Abraham  was  ninety-nine 
j-ears  old  when  the  Lord  renewed  to  him,  for 
the  last  time  tiefore  its  fulfillment,  the  promise 
of  ft  son  by  Sarah,  who  was  then  ninetj'  years 
old  ("r.  17),  and  from  ver.  21  it  would  seem 
that  Isaac  was  born  just  a  year  from  that 


H 


114 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  IV. 


20  He  staggered  not  at  the  promise  of  God  through 
uiiljelief;  but  was  strong  in  faith,  giving  glory  to  God ; 

21  And   being    fully   persuaded,   that   what  he   had 
promised,  he  was  able  also  to  perform. 


20  of  Sarah's  ■womb :  yea,  looking  unto  the  promise  of 
God,  he  wavered  not  through  unbelief,  but  waxed 

21  strong  through  faith,  giving  glory  to  God,  and  being 
fully  assured  that,  what  lie  had  promised,  he  was 


time.  So  far  as  the  record  goes,  it  would 
appear  that  Abraham  was  just  a  hundred 
years  old,  and  Sarah  ninety-one,  when  Isaac 
was  born.  But  Paul  did  not  think  necessary 
tobe  more  exact,  and  so  he  says  "about  an  hun- 
dred years  old."  Besides,  he  is  not  speaking 
of  the  precise  time  of  Isaac's  birth,  but  of  the 
age  of  Abraham  when  he  showed  his  strong 
faith  by  believing  God's  promise  that  a  son 
should  be  born  of  Sarah  a  year  from  that 
time.  [It  should  be  remarked  still  further, 
that  according  to  the  highest  critical  authori- 
ties, the  word  not  should  be  omitted  after  the 
word  considered}  Thus :  And  being  not  weak 
in  faith,  he  considered  his  own  body  now  dead, 
when  he  was  about  an  hundred  years  old, 
and  the  deadness  of  Sarah's  ivomb.  (ver. 20) 
But  staggered  not,  etc.  He  took  into  earnest 
consideration  the  natural  impossibility  of  off- 
spring in  such  a  case,  but  his  faith  in  the 
promise  of  God  was  not  thereby  shaken. 
Some  editors  omit  the  word  now  before  dead, 
and  the  sense  is  not  injured  by  the  omission  ; 
moreover,  the  insertion  of  it  can  be  more 
readily  explained  than  its  omission,  if  it  was 
a  part  of  the  original  text. — A.  H.] 

20.  He  staggered  not  [literally — was  not 
divided.  The  verb  is  passive  in  form,  but  may 
be  used  as  in  the  middle  voice.]  He  wavered 
not  at  the  promise  [or,  with  respect  to  the 
promise.  The  Kevisers'  rendering  does  not 
here  closely  follow  their  text]  through  unbe- 
lief— that  is,  wavered  not  as  he  would  have 
done  if  he  had  been  weak  in  faith  ;  but  Avas 
strong  in  faith  [literally,  made  strong,  or 
was  instrengthened.  Paul  himself  was  thus 
"  instrengthened"  at  many  times,  and  in  his 
last  hours  especially,  by  the  presence  of  his 
Saviour.  (2  Tim.  4:17.)]  Giving  glory  to  God. 
He  gave  glory  to  God,  by  confiding  so  im- 
plicitly in  his  truth  and  almighty  power. 
But  the  expression  naturally  suggests  the 
thought  of  some  oral  expression  of  adoration 
and    thankfulness,    some    devout    doxology. 


There  is  no  record  of  any  such  act;  but  it 
seems  highly  probable  that  the  patriarch 
would  not  fail,  on  such  an  occasion,  to  give 
verbal  utterance  to  his  devout  and  grateful 
emotions. 

21.  And  being  fully  persuaded.  [This 
and  the  preceding  participle  are  in  tlie  past 
tense,  their  action  being  contemporaneous 
with  the  verb  was  strengthened.]  The  parti- 
ciple translated  being  fully  persuaded  [from  a 
verb  meaning  to  bring  full  measure]  is  very 
emphatic.  It  is  from  the  same  verb  that  is 
translated  in  the  same  way  in  14:  5.  What  an 
inestimable  advantage  it  would  be,  not  only 
to  every  Christian,  but  to  every  man  enlight- 
ened by  divine  revelation,  if  he  was  fully 
persuaded  that  what  God  has  promised  he  is 
able  and  determined  also  to  perform  L  And 
how  unreasonable  and  sinful  it  is  to  entertain 
any  doubt  or  misgiving  about  the  fulfillment 
of  anything  which  God  has  promised,  how- 
ever difficult  or  impossible  it  may  seem  to  our 
human  conceptions!  [The  verb  promised, 
etymologicaliy  signifying  to proclaitn  (in  the 
way  of  promise),  is  here  in  the  perfect  passive 
form  with  middle  signification.  The  proper 
rendering  of  this  clause,  'what  he  hath  prom- 
ised he  is  able  also  to  do,'  makes  this  declara- 
tion applicable  for  all  time.  Parens  says: 
"Doubt  has  two  arguments:  Will  God  do  this, 
and  can  God  do  this?  Faith  has  likewise  two 
arguments:  God  will  do  this  because  he  has 
promised,  and  he  can  do  it  because  he  is 
omnipotent."  Concerning  the  faith  of  Abra- 
ham in  his  man.y  trials  and  in  his  great  trial, 
see  Heb.  11  :  8,  17.  Have  not  we  the  same 
reason  for  confiding  fully  in  God's  promises 
as  our  spiritual' father  Abraham  had?  And 
cannot  we  yield  the  same  implicit  trust?  We 
love  to  be  trusted,  to  have  our  word  believed. 
May  we  not  reverently  say  that  God  loves  to 
be  trusted  and  believed  ?  Certainly  we  honor 
him  when  we  confide  in  his  word,  his  power, 
and  his  grace.] 


iThe  not  is  wanting  in  X  A  B  C  and  some  cursives 
and  early  versions,  but  is  retained  as  a  part  of  the 
genuine  text  by  such  critics  as  Fritzsche,  De  Wette, 
and  Meyer.  The  latter  says:  "  This  omission  .  .  . 
manifestly  arose  from  incorrectly  having  regard  here 
to  Gen.  17 :  17."    Philippi,  Lange,  Alford,  also  favor  the 


retention  of  the  negative.  Buttniann,  on  the  other 
hand,  discards  the  not,  and  supplies  in  thought  a  f-iv 
(indeed)  to  the  verb,  'considered,'  to  which  the  follow- 
ing fi«  ('but  staggered  not,'  etc.)  is  made  to  correspond. 
-(F.) 


Ch.  IV.] 


ROMANS. 


115 


22  And  therefore  it  was  imputed  to  him  for  right- 
eousness. 

2.J  Now  it  was  not  written  for  his  sake  alone,  that  it 
was  imputed  to  liiui ; 

24  Hut  for  us  also,  to  whom  it  shall  he  imputed,  if  we 
believe  on  him  that  raised  up  Jesus  our  Lord  from  the 
dead ; 

2.')  Who  was  delivered  for  our  oflfeuces,  and  was  raised 
again  for  our  justification. 


22  able  also  to  perform.    Wherefore  also  it  was  reck- 

23  oned  unto  him  for  righleousuess.     Now  it  was  uot 
written  for  his  sake  ahme,  that  it  was  reckoned  unto 

24  him,  hut  for  our  sake  also,  uulo  whom  it  shall  be 
reckoned,   who   believe  on   him   that   rai.sed   Jesus 

25  our  1-ord  from  the  dead,  who  was  delivered  up  for 
our  trespasses,  and  was  raised  for  our  justification. 


22.  And  therefore  [literally,  'wherefore 
also'] — that  is,  because  liis  faiih  in  God  was 
so  complete  aiul  udiiiirable  [amid  the  strong- 
est temptations  to  disbelieve].  The  iipostle 
pow  repeats  the  expression  :  It  [that  is,  his  be- 
lieving] «'as  imputed  unto  him,  with  a 
view  of  making  the  application  to  believers 
as  the  spiritual  posterity  of  Abraham.  [For 
righteousness.  This  for,  as  Meyer  says, 
does  not  denote  that  faith  has  justification 
merely  "in  its  train,"  or  that  its  leads  finally 
into  righteousness,  but  the  meaning  of  the 
expression  is  that  faith  is  accounted,  immedi- 
ately and  directly,  as  righteousness.] 

23,  24.  Now  it  was  not  written.  We 
have  here  one  of  those  instances  of  the  nice- 
ties of  Greek  syntax,  which  cannot  easily  be 
fully  exhibited  in  a  translation.  The  formula 
"as  it  is  written"  occurs  very  often  in  the 
New  Testament,  in  introducing  passages  from 
the  Old.  In  such  cases  the  verb  is  in  the 
perfect  tense,  while  here  it  is  in  what  is  called 
the  aorist.  The  perfect  always  has  a  reference 
to  the  present  time,  describing  the  action  as 
past  indeed,  but  also  as  abiding  in  its  perma- 
nent consequences;  while  the  aorist  simply 
describes  the  action  as  finished  in  some  past 
time.  The  difference  may  be  sufficiently  rep- 
resented in  English  by  the  expressions:  "It 
stands  written,"'  and  "it  was  written." 
Hence  the  propriety  of  the  use  of  the  perfect 
in  the  ordinary  cases  of  quotation  from  the 
Old  Testament,  where  the  Scripture  quoted  is 
conceived  of  as  a  permanent  record,  without 
anj'  particular  reference  to  the  time  or  act  of 
writing  it;  and  hence,  also,  the  propriety  of 
the  aorist  tense  in  this  instance,  where  the  act 
of  writing  is  emphasized.  This  distinction  is 
dwelt  upon  particularly  here,  because  this 
aorist  form  is  vary  rare  in  cases  where  the 
inspired  writings  are  referred  to.  The  only 
other  instances  in  mind  are  15:  4  and  1  Cor. 
10:11,  in   both   which    places,   as   here,  the 


object  is  to  fix  the  attention  on  the  act  of 
writing.  The  unparalleled  fullness  and  nicety 
of  the  Greek  language  in  expressing  gram- 
matical relations,  of  which  the  passage  under 
consideration  is  an  instance,  is  one  of  many 
reasons  why  the  Cliristian  teacher  should, 
when  practicable,  make  himself  familiarly 
acquainted  with  the  original  language  in 
which  the  New  Testament  is  written.  For 
his  sake  alone.  Not  merely  for  tlie  purpose 
of  a  historical  affirmation  and  appreciation 
of  Abraham's  faith.  But  for  us  also,  to 
whom  it  shall  be  imputed.  [The  shall  is 
a  separate  verb  in  the  original,  and  denotes 
something  more  than  mere  futurity,  even  the 
certainty  and  continuous  accomplishment  of 
the  divine  purpose.*]  Such  passages  as  this 
furnish  a  warrant  for  a  sober  and  cautious 
generalization  from  the  historical  narratives 
of  the  Old  Testament.  See,  as  above,  15  :  4, 
and  1  Cor.  10  :  11 ;  also  1  Cor.  9  :  10.  If  we 
believe  on  him  that  raised  up  Jesus  our 
Lord  from  the  dead.  God  is  here  repre- 
sented as  the  object  of  our  faith,  in  order  to 
make  the  parallel  with  Abraham  more  com- 
plete, (ver.  17.)  ["We  who  believe  on  the 
same  God  on  whom  Abraham  believed,  but 
who  appears  to  us  in  a  peculiar  relation  as 
finisher  of  the  work  of  redemption."  (Tho- 
luck.)  This  raising  of  Jesus  from  the  dead 
seems  here  to  be  purposely  referred  to  as 
being  a  specially  great  and  gracious  exercise 
of  Omnipotence  (we  may  well  trust  such  a 
Being),  and  because  of  its  importance  as  an 
essential  element  in  man's  full  redemption.] 

25.  [Gifford :  "The  apostle  thus  returns 
to  the  main  point  of  his  subject  (s:?*),  'bring- 
inginthecrossintothe  midst.'  (Chrysostom)." 
Hodge:  "  This  verse  is  a  comprehensive  state- 
ment of  the  gospel."  DeiiveteA— given  up 
to  death.  Compare  8:  32;  Eph.  5:  2,  25;  Isa. 
53:  12.  See  the  touching  particularity  of  the 
apostle's  language  in   Gal.  2:  20,  where   he 


'Luther  has  used  precisely  this  expression  in  his  1     2  xhe  word  AoYi^o/uai— to  count,  reckon,  or  impute 

German  translation, "  esstehet  geschrieben,"  "it  stands    is  used  here  for  the  eleventh  time  in  this  chapter.— (F.) 
written."  I 


116 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  IV. 


says  of  Christ:  "Who  loved  me  and  gave 
himself  for  m(?."  If  Christ  died  for  all,  why 
may  not  every  reader  of  these  lines  adopt  this 
same  language?]  The  preposition  [fiid,  which 
with  the  accusative  "denotes  either  the  mov- 
ing or  the  final  cause."  (Boise.)]  is  the  same 
in  both  clauses,  in  the  Greek  as  well  as  in  the 
English.  Yet,  while  the  same  preposition  is 
suitable  for  both  clauses,  it  is  evident  that  the 
relation  of  his  being  delivered  up,  to  our 
offenses  is  not  precisely  the  same  as  the  rela- 
tion of  his  being  raised  again,  to  our  justifi- 
cation. He  was  delivered  up,  because  we  had 
offended;  he  was  raised  again,  that  we  might 
6e  justified;  he  was  delivered,  on  account  of 
our  offenses ;  he  was  raised  again,  in  order 
to  our  justification.  [As  we  are  said  to  be 
justified  on  the  ground  of  Christ's  obedi- 
ence and  in  his  blood,  so  some,  as  Bishop 
Horsley  in  former  times,  and  Godet  in  our 
own,  have  given  the  preposition  the  same 
meaning  in  both  places ;  thus  Godet :  "In  the 
same  way  as  Jesus  died  for  our  offenses  [com- 
mitted]— that  is,  our  (merited)  condemnation, 
he  was  raised  because  of  our  (accomplished) 
justification.  Our  sin  had  killed  him,  our  jus- 
tification [accomplished]  raised  him  again."' 
He  interprets  1  Cor.  15:  17,  "If  Jesus  be  not 
risen  ye  are  yet  in  your  sins"  in  a  similar 
manner:  "So  long  as  (your)  security  is  in 
prison,  (your)  debt  is  not  paid;  the  immedi- 
ate effect  of  payment  would  be  his  liberation." 
But  would  not  his  non-resurrection  show  that 
he  died  as  one  of  us  sinners,  and  that  man 
therefore  has  no  Saviour?  Meyer's  view  is  as 
follows:  "The  resurrection  of  the  sacrificed 
One  was  required  to  produce  in  man  the  faith 
through  which  alone  the  objective  fact  of  the 
atoning  offering  of  Jesus  could  have  the  effect 
of  justifying  subjectively,  because  Christ  is  the 
propitiation  (lAaaT^pioi')  through  faith."  Al- 
ford's  view  is  quite  similar.  Ellicott,  on  the 
"power  of  Christ's  resurrection,"  says:  "The 
resurrection  of  Christ  has  at  least  four  spirit- 
ual eflBcacies — namely:  («)  as  quickening  our 
souls,  Eph.  2:  5;  (b)  as  confirming  the  hope 
of  our  resurrection,  Rom,  8:1;  (c)  as  assuring 
us  of  our  j)?"e6-cw<  justification,  Rom.  4:  24,  25 
(d)  as  securing  our  final  justification,  our 
triumph  over  death,  and  participation  in  his 


glory,  2  Cor.  4:  10,  seq.  Col.  3:  4."]  This 
noun  justification  ["The  establishment  of  a 
man  as  just  by  acquittal  from  guilt."  (Cre- 
mer.)]  is  used  only  three  times  in  our  English 
New  Testament — here,  and  in  the  16th  and 
18th  verse  of  the  following  chapter.^  [""When 
the  prison  door,"  says  Chalmers,  "is  opened 
to  a  criminal,  and  that  by  the  very  authority 
which  lodged  him  there,  it  evinces  that  the 
debt  of  his  transgression  has  been  rendered, 
and  that  he  now  stands  acquitted  of  all  its 
penalties.  It  was  not  for  his  own,  but  for  our 
offenses,  that  Jesus  was  delivered  unto  the 
death,  and  that  his  body  was  consigned  to  the 
imprisonment  of  the  grave.  And  when  an 
angel  descended  from  heaven  and  rolled  back 
the  great  stone  from  the  door  of  the  sepulchre, 
this  speaks  that  the  justice  of  God  is  satisfied, 
that  the  ransom  of  our  iniquities  has  been 
paid,  that  Christ  has  rendered  a  full  discharge 
of  all  that  debt  for  which  he  undertook-as  the 
great  surety  between  God  and  the  sinners  who 
believe  in  him."  Dr.  Schaff  says  :  "Without 
the  resurrection,  the  death  of  Christ  would  be 
of  no  avail,  and  his  grave  would  be  the  grave 
of  all  our  hopes,  as  the  apostle  clearly  saj's. 
(1  Cor.  15: 17.)  A  gospel  of  a  dead  Saviour  would 
be  a  miserable  failure  and  delusion.  ...  It  is 
by  the  fact  of  the  resurrection  that  Christ's 
death  was  shown  to  be  the  death  of  the  inno- 
cent and  righteous  One  for  foreign  guilt,  and 
that  it  was  accepted  by  God  as  a  full  satisfac- 
tion for  the  sins  of  the  world."  Dr.  Weiss 
says:  "For  Paul  the  special  significance  of 
the  resurrection  must  be  this,  that  it  proves 
that  the  death  of  Christ  was  not  the  death  of 
the  sinner.  .  .  .  Accordingly,  the  assurance 
that  God  cannot  condemn  us  is  owing  prima- 
rily, it  is  true,  to  the  death  of  Christ,  but  still 
more*  to  his  resurrection  and  exaltation  to 
God's  right  hand,  inasmuch  as  these  first 
prove  that  his  death  was  the  death  of  the 
Mediator  of  salvation,  who  has  redeemed  us 
from  condemnation.  .  .  .  The  objective  atone- 
ment was  accomplished  by  means  of  the  death 
of  Christ,  but  the  appropriation  of  it  in  justifi- 
cation is  only  possible  if  we  believe  in  the 
saving  significance  of  his  death,  and  we  can 
attain  to  faith  in  that  only  if  it  is  sealed  by 
means  of  the  resurrection."] 


iltcorrespondsexactly  with  the  Greek  word  SiKoiuKTis,  1  actly  with  the  Greek  word  fit/coiufia,  for  whicli  it  stands 
of  which  it  is  a  translation,  here  and  in  5 :  18,  the  only  in  5 :  16,  which  is  elsewhere  translated  "  righteousness." 
two  places  where  that  word  is  found;  not  quite  so  ex-  |. 


Ch.  v.] 


ROMANS. 


117 


CHAPTEK  V. 


THEREFORE  being  justified  by  faith,  we  have  peace 
with  God  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ: 


1  Being  therefore  justified '  by  faith,  2  we  have  peace 

2  with  God  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ;  through 


1  Gr.  out  of 'I  Many  aDciem  aulhorities  read  jet  us  Aati 


Observe,  thiit  the  way  of  justification  before 
God  was  substantially  the  same  before  Christ, 
as  it  is  now,  the  same  for  Abraham  and  David, 
as  it  is  for  us. 

The  apostle  here  introduces  what  he  follows 
in  the  next  four  chapters  (s-s),  ''death,  as 
connected  with  sin,  and  life,  as  connected 
witli  rif//iteotimess."  (Alford.)  [Others,  as 
Godet,  Gifford.  Turner,  think  that  the  subject 
of  sanctification  is  not  introduced  until  the 
sixth  chapter.] 

Ch.  5  :  In  this  chapter  the  apostle  treats  of 
the  happy  results  of  the  gospel  way  of  justifi- 
cation, both  to  the  individual  believer  (ver.  i-u), 
and  to  the  race  at  large,  (ver.  12-21.)  [Perhaps 
as  a  general  title  to  the  chapter  we  might 
have  somctiiing  like  this:  Justification 
tlirough  Christ  contrasted  with  condemnation 
through  Adam.  The  more  special  subject  of 
the  first  eleven  verses  is  the  certainty  of  final 
salvation  for  justified  believers.     (Godet.)] 

1.  Therefore.  The  last  half  of  this  verse 
is  an  inference  from  the  preceding  section. 
(3:21.)  Being  justified  by  faith;  or,  more 
exactly,  having  been  justified  by  faith,  for  it 
is  important  to  make  the  distinction  here  be- 
tween the  past  participle,  which  represents 
justification  as  a  completed  act,  and  ih&  present 
participle  used  in  3  :  24,  which  represents  jus- 
tification as  in  process,  conditioned  on  hj'po- 
thetical  faith.  This  ditference,  which  is  de- 
clared by  the  tense  of  the  original  participle, 
is  also  confirmed  by  the  concluding  part  of 
the  verse.  Observe  how  closely  'having  been 
justified'  follows 'justification  '  in  4:25.  This 
is  liable  to  be  overlooked  on  account  of 
the  division  of  the  chapters.  [For  'justified 
by  faith,'  IsToyes  has  "accepted  as  righteous 
through  faith."  That  our  faith,  subjectively 
considered,  is  not  the  ground  or  meritorious 
cause  of  our  ju.stification  is  aflSrmed  in  the 
"Formula  Concordiae":  "Faith  does  not 
justify  because  it  is  so  good  a  work  or  so  dis- 
tinguished a  virtue,  but  because,  in  the  prom- 
ise of  the  gospel,  it  apprehends  and  embraces 
the  merit  of  Christ."]  We  have  peace  with 
God  through  our  Lord  Je^us  Christ.   The 


'peace  with  God'  here  spoken  of  is  not  to  be 
confounded  with  "the  peace  of  God"  men- 
tioned in  Phil.  4:7;  Col.  3 :  15.  [In  this  last 
place  the  Revision  has  "peace  of  Christ."'\ 
This  peace  with  God  [literally,  in  relation  to 
Ood']  is  the  new  and  friendly  relation  which 
has  taken  the  place  of  the  former  estrange- 
ment, and  enmity,  and  exposure  to  wrath, 
[a  relation  of  peace  with  God,  which  has 
been  mediated  'through  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.']  That  'peace  of  God'  is  an  inward 
feeling.  To  some  extent  they  mutually  imply 
each  other.  The  new  relation  is  the  ground 
and  source  of  the  new  feeling,  without  which 
the  feeling,  if  in  any  sense  possible,  would  be 
only  a  delusion.  [This  'peace  of  God,'  as 
Calvin  remarks,  "the  Pharisee  has  not,  who 
swells  with  false  confidence  in  his  own  works; 
nor  the  stupid  sinner  who  is  not  disquieted, 
being  inebriated  with  the  sweetness  of  his 
vices ;  for  though  neither  of  these  seems  to 
have  a  manifest  disquietude  as  he  has  who  is 
smitten  with  a  consciousness  of  sin,  yet,  as 
they  really  do  not  approach  the  tribunal  of 
God,  they  have  no  reconciliation  with  him."] 
There  is  an  important  and  somewhat  diflBcult 
question  here  in  regard  to  the  true  reading 
of  the  original.  Instead  of  'we  have,'  some 
manuscripts  [N*AB*CDKL]  read  let  us 
have.  [This  subjunctive  form  'let,'  etc.,  is 
the  rendering  of  the  Canterbury  Revision, 
and  so  of  the  verb  rejoice  in  ver.  2,  3,  though 
the  latter  verb,  either  indicative  or  subjunc- 
tive in  form,  cannot  as  subjunctive  be  well 
associated  with  the  direct  negative  (ou).  If 
the  subjunctive  here  could  be  taken  in  a  con- 
cessive sense — "we  may  have  peace,"  etc. — it 
would  give  a  very  appropriate  meaning;  but 
such  a  use  of  the  Greek  subjunctive.  Dr.  Schaff 
says,  is  "somewhat  doubtful."  Alford  adopts 
the  hortatory  rendering :  '  Let  us  have  peace,' 
and  says:  "This  is  the  only  admissible  sense 
of  the  first  person  subjunctive  in  an  affirma- 
tivesentence  like  the  present."  Yet  he  doubts 
whether  this  was  the  original  reading.]  The 
difference  between  the  two  forms  of  the  Greek 
verb  is  only  in  a  single  letter;  there  was 
probably  no  difference  in  the  common  pro- 


118 


ROMANS. 


[Cn.  V. 


2  By  whom  also  we  have  access  by  faith  into  this 
grace  wherein  we  stand,  and  rejoice  in  hope  of  the 
glory  of  God. 

3  And  not  only  so,  but  we  glory  in  tribulations  also ; 
knowing  that  tribulation  worketh  patience; 


whom  also  we  have  had  our  access  i  by  faith  into 

this  grace  wherein  we  stand;   and  2  we  ^ rejoice  in 

3  hope  of  the  glory  of  God.    And  not  only  so,  but 


1  Some  ancient  authorities  omit  by  faith 2  Or,  let  us  rejoice 3  Gr.  glory. 


nunciation  of  the  two  forms,  and  there  is 
abundant  evidence  in  the  manuscripts  that 
the  two  letters  were  often  interchanged.  The 
external  evidence — from  extant  manuscripts, 
translations,  and  patristic  citations — is  strongly 
in  favor  of  the  latter  form,  '  let  us  have,'  the 
live  oldest  manuscripts  agreeing  in  presenting 
that  form.  On  the  other  hand,  the  simple 
indicative  form,  'we  have,'  is  what  seems 
most  suitable  in  the  connection  of  thought. 
In  such  a  case,  the  latter  argument,  which 
belongs  to  what  is  called  internal  evidence, 
must  be  very  strong  indeed  to  outweigh  a 
decided  preponderance  of  external  evidence 
in  the  opposite  scale.  Meyer  [and  so  De 
Wette]  thinks  that  in  the  present  case  the 
internal  evidence  must  prevail  over  the  exter- 
nal, and  therefore  reads,  with  the  common 
English  Version,  'we  have  peace  with  God.' 
"We  feel  constrained,  however,  in  spite  of  this 
high  authority,  and  in  spite  of  the  confessed 
logical  difficulty,  to  yield  to  the  force  of  ex- 
ternal testimony,  and  read,  "let  us  have  peace 
with  God."  [If  logical  coherence  and  clear- 
ness must  in  this  case  yield  to  external  evi- 
dence, we  may  conceive  of  the  apostle  as  say- 
ing: Since  we  have  been  justified  by  faith, 
let  us  have,  let  us  possess,  peace  with  God. 
At  the  time  when  we  first  trusted  in  Christ, 
we 'received  the  reconciliation.'  (ver.ii.)  Let 
us  have  this  relation  of  peace  as  a  priceless 
treasure,  and  glory  in  all  that  it  ofl^ers  us. 
(A.  H.)]  This  peace  with  God  is  the  first 
of  the  blessings  which  the  justified  believer 
enjoys. 

2,  By  whom  also  we  have  access. 
[Literally,  have  had  introduction,  etc.,  this 
past  tense  showing  that  the  introduction, 
"not  our  coming,  but  Christ's  bringing,"  is 
prior  to  peace  with  God.  (Gifford.)]  We 
have  through  Christ  obtained  the  introduc- 
tion [see  Eph.  2:18;  3:12;  compare  1  Peter 
3  :  18]   into  this  grace  (of  justification),  and 


having  been  so  introduced,  we  abide  and  stand 
fast  in  it ;  and  looking  forward  from  this  firm 
standing  ground,  we  rejoice  (or  make  our 
boast)  in  the  expectation  of  something  better 
still,  even  the  glorious  state  of  perfection 
which  God  has  in  store  for  us.  (See  potes  on 
2:7.)  [We  rejoice.  That  is,  boast  or  glory 
"in  a  new  and  true  manner.  Compares  :  27." 
(Bengel.)  Our  glorying  rests  upon  hope  as  its 
foundation.  Some  expositors,  by  making  into 
(eU)  mean  in,  would  read,  'through  faith  in 
this  grace,'  and  thus  refer  the  'access'  of  this 
verse  (compare  Eph.  3:12,  where  this  word 
is  used  independently)  to  our  approach 
through  Christ  to  the  Father  (Eph. 2; is);  but 
this,  as  De  Wette  says,  is  "wholly  inadmissi- 
ble," and  in  part  (faith  in  this  grace)  is  here 
"wholly  senseless."  Hhe  \Qvh  stand  is  per- 
fect in  form  but  present  in  meaning.]  This 
joy  in  the  hope  of  future  glory  [see  8: 18;  2 
Cor.  4:17;  Col.  1  :  27  ;  IThess.  2:12;  Titus 
2  :  13]  is  the  second  blessing  of  the  individual 
believer,  and  is  intimately  connected  with 
that  assured  position  in  which  he  stands  as 
fully  forgiven  and  perfectly  justified. 

3,  4.  And  not  only  so.  [Tholuck  ("Stu- 
dien  und  Kritiken,"  Vol.  VIII,  pp.  390,  391) 
finds  in  Paul's  style  of  thinking  and  writing 
an  image  of  the  tide  where  one  wave  overtops 
another;  the  frequently  recurring  not  only  so 
(ovi  /xdroi'  Se)  is  the  beat  or  swelling  of  the  wave. 
See  ver.  11 ;  8 :  23 ;  9  :  10.  Prof  Stuart  thinks 
the  repetition  of  the  phrase  here  corresponds 
with  our  first,  second,  third,  in  English.]  A 
third  blessed  prerogative  of  the  justified  be- 
liever is  that  afflictions  are  made  subservient 
to  the  confirmation  of  his  hope.  We  not  only 
rejoice  in  hope  of  future  good,  but  we  also 
rejoice  or  make  our  boast^  in  present  troubles ; 
not  merely  zn  the  midst  of  them,  and  in  spite 
of  them,  but  actually  in  them,  or  on  accou7it 
of  them,  as  the  context  implies;  and  this  is  in 
accordance  both  with  Scripture  precept  and 


1  The  Canterbury  Revision  has  here,  as  in  the  pre-  I 
ceding  verse,  let  ns  rejoice,  a  rendering  which    our 
American    Revisers    have    properly    discarded.    This 
verb,  meaning  to  exult  or  triumph,  is  in  the  Common 
Version  oftener  rendered  by  the  word  giory  than  by 


any  other,  and  is  usually  so  rendered  in  the  Revised 
Version.  This  Pauline  word,  as  we  may  call  it,  occurs 
some  thirty-six  times  in  his  epistles  and  only  twice 
elsewhere — to  wit,  in  James  1:9;  4 :  16. — (F.) 


Cii.  v.] 


ROMANS. 


119 


4  And  patience,  experience;  and  experience,  hope: 

5  And  hope  luakelh  not  ashamed;  because  the  love 
of  God  is  shed  abroad  in  our  hearts  by  the  Holy 
Ghost  which  is  given  unto  us. 


1  we  also  2 rejoice  in  our  tribulations:  knowing  that 

4  tribulation  workelh  ^patience;  and  ^ patience,  pro- 

5  bation  ;  and  probation,  hope:  and  hope  putteth  not 
to  shame;  because  the  love  of  God  hath  been  shed 
abroad  in  our  hearts  through  the  Holy  Spirit  which 


1  Or,  tetu*  aUo  rejoice 2  Gr.  glory S  Or,  tted/<utnet: 


with  recorded  Christian  experience.  See 
Matt.  5  :  10-12 ;  James  1:2^;  1  Peter  4  :  13, 
14;  2  Cor.  12:9,  10.  [One  thing  which  en- 
abled the  apostle  to  glory  in  his  tribulations 
(literally,  the  tribulaiioyis)  was  the  conscious- 
ness that  ho  was  suffering  for  Christ.  AVe  all 
liave  a  sufficiency  of  trials  and  afflictions,  but 
we  fail  to  rejoice  in  them,  or  to  be  supported 
under  tliejii,  as  we  should  be,  through  the 
suspicion  that  they  may  have  been  sent  to  us, 
not  for  our  love  to  Christ,  but  on  account  of 
our  unfaitlifulness  or  misdeeds.]  Knowing 
that.  Because  we  know  that.  Tribulation 
worketh  [out]  patience.  Endurance,  as 
less  passive  than  patience,  would  better  ex- 
press the  apostle's  thought.  See  notes  on  2:7. 
[The  word  literally  means  a  remaining  under, 
a  bearing  up  under,  the  position  of  one  who 
does  not  fretfully  strive  to  throw  off  a  burden, 
but,  as  Trench  says,  "under  a  great  siege  of 
trials  bears  up  and  does  not  lose  heart  or 
courage."]  'Tribulation'  commonly  works 
impatience  in  unbelievers,  and  sometimes  in 
believers  also.  But  in  such  cases,  God's  usual 
metiiod  is  to  add  affliction  to  affliction,  until 
the  impatient  soul  is  subdued  under  their 
weight  and  learns  to  bo  calmly  submissive. 
Here  the  constancy  and  firmness  of  the  be- 
liever under  afflictions  is  assumed.  "We  have 
in  this  statement,  therefore,  a  good  practical 
test  by  which  to  trj-  our  state.  And  patience, 
experience.  Endurance  works  [first,  a  prov- 
ing or  testing,  then]  aiyproval.  The  word  here 
translated  experience  [used  only  by  Paul]  is 
the  same  that  is  translated  'proof  in  2  Cor. 
2:9;  13:3;  Phil.  2 :  22.  [In  this  last  text, 
"Ye  know  tlie  proof"  of  Timothy,  Ellicott 
regards  this  "proof"  as  equivalent  to  "tried 
character."  James  1 :  12  is  closelj'  related  to 
our  passage  both  in  thoughts  and  words: 
"  Blessed  is  the  man  who  enditreth  temptation 
(affliction),  for  when  he  is  tried,  he  shall  re- 
ceive the  crown  of  life,"  the  object  of  his 
hope.}  And  experience,  hope.  When  we 
have  endured  trouble,  and  the  endurance  has 
resulted  favorably,  it  is  inevitable  that  this 
provirg  of  ourselves  should  strengthen  and 


brighten  our  hope.  The  hope  that  is  born  of 
faith  takes  on  a  new  and  more  robust  char- 
acter when  it  has  been  confirmed  by  the 
experience  of  trial  well  endured. 

Now,  the  apostle  goes  on  to  show  the  cer- 
tainty of  ih'xs  hope  as  a  fourth  particular  in 
the  blessed  results  of  this  way  of  salvation  to 
the  individual  believer. 

5.  And  hope  maketh  not  ashamed. 
[Literally,  the  hope,  which  some  regard  as 
equivalent  to  this  hope,  but  so  the  apostle  did 
not  write  it.  Abstract  nouns  in  Greek,  more 
frequently  than  in  English,  take  the  article, 
so  that  we  cannot  be  sure  of  its  having  here 
any  special  emphasis.  Yet  it  may  refer  to 
the  hope  just  mentioned.]  And  our  hope 
shames  (us)  not,  by  disappointing  and  mock- 
ing us  ["the  hope  will  be  reality  "  (Bengel)  ; 
"its  issue  in  salvation  most  certain."  (Cal- 
vin.)], because  the  love  of  God  (to  us)  is 
shed  abroad  in  our  hearts.  [Paul,  in  after 
years,  in  this  very  city  of  Rome  to  which  he 
is  now  writing,  had  this  same  hope  which 
maketh  not  ashamed  even  in  the  prospect  of 
martyrdom,  or,  at  least,  in  a  .state  of  uncer- 
tainty whether  life  or  death  lay  before  him. 
See  Phil.  1 :  20.  If  we  have  the  sense  of  God's 
love  shed  abroad  in  our  hearts  by  the  indwell- 
ing Holy  Spirit,  our  Christian  hope  will  never 
shame  us;  on  the  contrary,  it  will  afford  us 
the  highest  confidence  and  greatest  glorying. 
A  sense  of  God's  love  will  also  create  in  our 
hearts  a  love  to  God  in  return.  (iJohn4:i9.)] 
The  exjjression  'the  love  of  God'  may  mean 
either  God's  love  to  us  or  our  love  to  God. 
There  is  nothing  in  the  form  of  expression  in 
either  the  Greek  or  the  English  to  show  which 
of  the  two  meanings  it  has  in  any  particular 
passage.  It  is  certainly  used  in  both  senses  in 
the  Scriptures.  It  clearly  means  God's  love 
to  us  in  8  :  39 ;  2  Cor.  13 :  14 ;  and  it  just  as 
clearly  means  our  love  to  God  in  Luke  11 : 
42;  John  5:42:  1  John  3: 17;  5:3.  Hence 
its  meaning  must  be  determined  in  each  case 
bj'  the  connected  words  and  the  course  of 
thought.  In  this  case,  the  connection  seems 
to  require  us  to  understand  by  it  God's  love 


120 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  V. 


6  For  when  we  were  yet  without  strength,  in  due  I 
time  Christ  died  for  the  ungodly.  | 


6  was  given  unto  us.    For  while  we  were  yet  weak,  in 

7  due  season  Christ  died  for  the  ungodly.    For  scarce- 


toward  us,  though  some  commentators,  ancient 
as  well  as  modern,  have  taken  it  in  the  other 
sense.  But  the  expresssion  'shed  abroad  in 
our  hearts,'  or,  as  it  might  be  quite  literally 
rendered,  poured  forth  [or,  poured  out],  as 
well  as  tlie  general  course  of  thought,  points 
rather  to  God's  love  toward  us.  [Compare 
ver.  8,  and  see  Winer,  p.  185.  Prof.  Cremer 
remarks  that  "in  the  Pauline  writings  the 
relation  of  men  to  God  is  only  once  expressed 
by  the  substantive  love  (ayamj) — viz.,  2  Thess. 
3:5,"  and  that  in  other  instances  where  love 
is  followed  by  the  genitive  it  expresses  the 
love  of  God  or  of  Christ  to  us.  He  says:  "It 
is  contrary  alike  to  Christian  experience  and 
to  St.  Paul's  chain  of  thought,  here  and  else- 
where, to  make  the  certainty  of  Christian 
hope  rest  upon  love  to  God  existing  in  the 
heart."  His  definition  of  the  word  for  love 
(oyairi)),  a  Word  not  found  in  the  profane 
writers  nor  in  Philo  or  Josephus — "a  word 
born  within  the  bosom  of  revealed  religion" 
(Trench) — is  this:  "It  denotes  the  love  which 
chooses  its  object  with  decision  of  will,  so  that 
it  becomes  self-denying  or  compassionate  de- 
votion to  and  for  the  same."  "Classical 
Greek,"  he  says,  "knows  nothing  of  the  use 
of  this  word  (dvoTrSi')  to  designate  compassion- 
ating love  or  the  love  that  freely  chooses  its 
object."  Another  verb  {(i>i.\e'it')  denotes  the 
love  of  natural  inclination,  affection,  friend- 
ship (Latin,  nmare),  while  this  verb  corre- 
sponds to  the  Latin  word  diligere.]  The  verb 
'is  shed  abroad,'  or  'is  poured  forth,'  implies 
an  n bnnda7it  commvimcat'ion  or  expansion  of 
God's  love  in  our  hearts.  The  same  verb  is 
used  in  Acts  2:17,  18;  10:45;  Titus  8  :  6,  to 
express  the  plenteous  effusion  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  ["The  love  of  God  did  not  descend 
upon  us  as  dew  in  drops,  but  as  a  stream  has 
it  poured  forth  itself  into  our  hearts."  (Phil- 
ippi.)  [The  heart,  says  Ellicott,  "is  prop- 
erly the  imaginary  seat  of  the  soul,  and  thence 
the  seat  and  centre  of  the  moral  life  viewed 
on  the  side  of  the  affections."  "What  greater 
blessing  can  we  desire  than  that  the  indwell- 
ing Holy  Spirit  may  continually  and  in  rich 
abundance  shed  abroad  in  our  hearts  God's 
love  and  love  to  God  in  return?  "Like  an 
overflowing  stream  in  a  thirsty  land,  so  is  the 
rich  flood  of  divine  love  poured  out  and  shed 


abroad  in  the  heart."  (Gilford.)]  By  the 
Holy  Ghost.  The  Holy  Spirit  is  here  repre- 
sented as  displaj'ing,  expanding  to  the  view 
of  the  soul  God's  love.  This  agrees  with  our 
Lord's  words  in  John  16:  14.  It  has  been  a 
subject  of  much  critical  discussion  whether  it 
is  proper  to  speak  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  acting 
upon  the  truth  or  only  upon  the  mind  and 
heart  of  man.  Apart  from  all  metaphysical 
niceties,  this  passage,  and  the  one  referred  to 
above,  seem  to  show  that  it  is  allowable  to 
speak  of  the  Spirit  as  acting  upon  the  truth. 
[Is  it  said  in  either  of  these  passages  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  acts  uponihe  truth?  Is  an^'thing 
more  affirmed  in  John  16:14  than  this,  that 
the  Holy  Spirit  would  reveal  Christ  by  means 
of  the  truth  to  the  disciples?  And  is  not  that 
working  with  the  truth  rather  than  acting 
upon  the  truth  ?  So,  too,  the  words  of  Paul 
may  imply  that  the  Holy  Spirit  makes  use  of 
truth  in  pouring  forth  the  love  of  God  in 
believing  hearts,  inasmuch  as  we  cannot  see 
how  he  could  otherwise  reveal  that  love  to 
their  hearts;  but  does  this  imply  any  action 
of  the  Spirit  on  the  truth  itself?  May  not 
his  action  be  altogether  on  the  heart,  either 
directly  or  by  means  of  the  truth?  We  are 
unable  to  see  anything  favorable  to  the  view 
expressed  by  Dr.  Arnold  in  either  of  these 
passages.  (A.  H. )]  Which  is  given  (more 
strictly,  was  given)  unto  us.  When  was  this 
giving  of  the  Spirit  unto  us?  On  the  day  of 
Pentecost,  say  various  commentators  But  to 
refer  it  to  the  time  of  each  individual's  regen- 
eration seems  more  suitable,  especially  as  it  is 
Paul  who  says  this,  for  he  certainly  did  not 
receive  the  gift  on  the  day  of  Pentecost. 
[According  to  Paul's  teaching,  the  Holy  Spirit 
is  not  only  given  to  us  at  particular  times,  but 
dwells  within  us,  in  our  hearts,  as  an  abiding, 
sar.ctifying  presence,  so  that  our  bodies  are 
his  temples.  "Know  ye  not  that  your  body 
is  a  temple  of  the-in-you  Holy  Spirit?"  1 
Cor.  6:19;  compare  Gal.  4 :  6;  1  Cor.  3:16; 
2  Cor.  1  :  22;  6  :  16.  Meyer  remarks  that  the 
divine  love  shed  abroad  by  the  Spirit  in  be- 
lieving hearts  "is  to  them,  like  the  Spirit 
himself,  the  earnest  of  the  hoped-for  glory." 
See  2  Cor.  1:22;  5:5."] 

6.  The  for,  with  which  this  verse  is  intro- 
duced, indicates  that  what  follows  is  a  signal 


Ch.  v.] 


ROMANS. 


121 


proof  of  that  love  of  God  to  us  which  is  shed 
abroad  in  our  hearts  by  the  Spirit.  When 
we  were  yet  without  strength.  When  we 
were  impotent,  powerless  for  good.  [Dr.  Gif- 
ford  supposes  a  contrast  here  to  the  believer's 
present  state,  as  strong  in  hope,  etc.]  The 
term  'without  strengtii '  is  explained  by  the 
stronger  terms  'ungodly'  and  'sinners.' 
(ver.  8.)  [We  are  weak  to  do  right,  but  strong 
to  do  wrong;  strong  to  sin,  but  weak  to  resist. 
The  special  helplessness  referred  to  here  is 
man's  inability  to  redeem  himself  or  put  him- 
self into  a  salvable  state.  He  can  make  no 
atonement  for  his  sin  nor  deliver  himself  from 
its  power.  "This  inability  to  help  ourselves 
is  a  fact,"  says  Prof.  Boise,  "which  the  philo- 
sophical and  religious  systems  of  Asia  and 
Greece  had  failed  to  recognize  or  suitably  to 
emphasize."  The  text  of  the  Revision  has 
two  'yets,'  which  occasion  some  difficulty, 
though  the  sense  of  the  passage  is  entirely 
clear.  Some  render  the  first  (in.)  besides  or 
moreover  (like  in  Se  ]  see  Heb.  11  :  36).  Others 
think  the  repetition  was  for  the  sake  of  em- 
phasis, and  should  be  but  once  rendered. 
Meyer  rejects  the  latter  yet  {in.)  as  ungenu- 
ine.]  The  adjective  here  translated  'without 
strength'  is  the  same  which  is  translated 
'sick'  in  Matt.  25:39,  43,  44;  Luke  10:9; 
Acts  5  :  15, 16.  Holiness  is  the  healthy,  strong 
condition  of  the  human  soul.  In  due  time 
Christ  died.  Tliere  was  a  due  time,  a  suit- 
able season,  for  Christ  to  die.  There  was  a 
long,  providential  preparation,  a  remarkable 
concurrence  of  many  conditions,  before  "the 
fulness  of  time"  for  God  to  "send  forth  his 
Son  "  had  come.  What  man  could  do  to  help 
himself— by  experience  of  the  evil  of  sin,  by 
civil  laws  and  religious  rites,  by  philosophy, 
by  the  help  of  divine  laws  and  tj-pical  sacri- 
fices— must  first  be  shown.  And  then  a  select 
nation  must  be  prepared  by  centuries  of  dis- 
cipline to  comprehend  the  new  doctrines; 
time  must  be  allowed  for  the  human  race  to 
grow  out  of  the  fabulous  into  the  historic  age, 
so  that  the  proofs  of  the  fads  connected  with 
the  advent  of  the  Son  of  God  could  be  ade- 
quately established  ;  a  language,  more  copious 
and  precise  than  any  earlier  one,  must  be  de- 
veloped ;  a  government,  wider  and  stronger 
than  the  world  had  before  seen,  must  be  con- 


solidated, to  favor  unwittingly,  even  while  it 
wickedly  opposed,  the  dissemination  of  the 
gospel;  and  then,  when  all  this  protracted, 
complex,  wonderful  preparation  was  com- 
pleted, in  due  time  Christ  died  for  the  uyigodly. 
[Philippi  regards  this  'due  time'  ((cara  «catpbi') 
as  meaning  "at  the  appointed  time."  Of 
course,  the  two  views  really  imply  each  other. 
Meyer  remarks — with,  perhaps,  too  great  re- 
striction of  view— that  the  death  of  Jesus  for 
the  ungodly  took  place  at  the  proper  season, 
because,  had  it  not  taken  place  then,  they 
would,  instead  of  the  divine  grace,  have  expe- 
rienced the  final  righteous  outbreak  of  divine 
wrath,  seeing  that  the  time  of  the  "passing 
over"  (3:25)  and  of  the  "forbearance"  of  God 
had  come  to  an  end.  Compare  the  idea  of 
the  "fulness  of  tlie  times"  in  Eph.  1:10; 
Gal.  4:4.  Dr.  Schaff,  speaking  of  the  fitness 
of  time,  race,  country ,.as  concerns  the  world's 
Saviour,  says:  "We  cannot  conceive  of  his 
advent  at  the  time  of  Noah  or  Abraham,  or  in 
China,  or  among  the  savage  tribes  of  America. 
History  is  a  unit,  and  a  gradual  unfolding  of 
a  divine  plan  of  infinite  wisdom.  Christ  is 
the  turning-point  and  centre  of  history',  the 
end  of  the  old  and  the  beginning  of  the  new 
humanity ;  a  truth  which  is  confessed,  wit- 
tingly or  unwittingly,  by  every  date  from 
A.  D.  throughout  the  civilized  world."'  For 
the  ungodly.  The  word  'ungodly'  is  with- 
out the  article  in  the  original,  as  referring, 
not  to  a  cla.-s,  but  to  all  mankind.]  It  was 
for  the  benefit  of  the  ungodly,  that  he  might 
open  for  them  a  way  out  of  their  ungodliness 
into  the  favor  of  God.  [The  'for'  in  this 
clause,  like  our  English  for,  may  signify  'in- 
stead of,'  or  'for  the  benefit  of,'  but  usually 
has  the  latter  signification.  It  seemingly  ex- 
presses, more  fully  than  'instead  of'(<lvTl),  the 
love  and  compassion  of  Christ.  Dr.  Gilford, 
in  the  "Bible  (Speaker's)  Commentary,"  saj's: 
"It  would  be  enough  to  say  that  Christ 
died  'in  our  stead'  (avn),  if  his  death  had 
been  unconscious,  unwilling,  or  accidental." 
"Strictly  speaking,"  saj's  Ellicott, "/or (i-jrep), 
in  its  ethical  sense,  retains  some  trace  of  its 
local  meaning,  'bending  over  to  protect,'  and 
thus  points  more  immediatelj'  to  the  action 
than  to  the  object  or  circumstance  from  which 
the  action  is  supposed  to  spring." '    Philippi 


>  "  The  latter  rrlation,"  says  Ellicott,  "  is  more  cor-  t  be  more  naturally  used  with  the  thing, '  sins,'  v-nip  with 
rectly  deficed  by  jr«pl  {concerning,  Jor'l.    wtpl  will  thus  I  the  person, '  sinners,'  and  this,  with  a  few  exceptions 


122 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  V. 


7  For  scarcely  for  a  righteous  man  will  one  die:  yet 
peradveuiure  lor  a  good  mau  some  would  even  dare  to 
die. 


ly  for  a  righteous  man  will  one  die:  for  peradven- 
ture  for  the  good  man  some  one  would  even  dare  to 


remarks  that  "one  may  die  for  and  yet  not 
instead  of  another,  as  the  death  that  I  submit 
to  oil  another's  behalf  .  .  .  does  not  always 
assume  that  he  must  have  died  if  I  had  not 
died.  Still,  this  will  usually  be  the  case,  and 
with  respect  to  Christ  it  was  the  case,  his  death 
being,  as  we  l<now,  from  other  sources,  a  vicari- 
ous, sacrificial  death.  Compare  on  3  :  24.  The 
phrases   'Christ  died  for  us,'  'gave  himself 

up  for  us;  (Rom.  8:32;  14:15;  1  Cor.  1:13;  2  Cor.  5:14;  Eph. 
5:2;  1  Thess.  5  :  10  ;  1  Tim.  2:6;  Titus  2: 14)    therefore    ex- 

press  the  compassionate  love  of  Christ's  vica- 
rious, sacrificial  death,  so  that  in  the  for  the 
instead  of  is  assumed  or  rather  included. 
Compare  Steiger  on  1  Peter  3  :  18."  Prof. 
Cremer  says:  "We  must  particularly  keep 
in  view  the  representation  of  death  as  a  puni- 
tive sentence  when  mention  is  made  of  the 
death  of  Christ."  And  after  referring  to  the 
Pauline  expressions,  dying  to  and  with,  he 
adds:  "Bearing  all  this  in  mind,  it  is  also 
clear  how  the  matter  stands  with  reference  to 
Christ's  dying  for  the  ungodly,  which,  if  it 
does  not  actually  express  the  substitutionary 
import  of  Christ's  death  (compare  5io,  1  Cor. 
8:11),  has  meaning  only  upon  the  principle 
of  this  substitutionary  import."  Meyer  states 
that  Paul  "has  certainly  regarded  the  death 
of  Jesus  as  an  act  furnishing  the  satisfactio 
vicaria,  as  is  clear  from  the  fact  that  this 
bloody  death  was  accounted  by  him  as  an 
expiatory  sacrifice  (3  :  25;  Eph.  5:2;  compare 
avTi\vT(>ov  in  1  Tim.  2  :  6),  but  in  no  passage 
has  he  expressed  the  substitutionary  relation 
by  the  usual  preposition  "  (oktI).  Our  Saviour 
himself  expresses  this  most  clearly  in  Matt. 
20:28;  Mark  10:  45,  where  he  speaks  of  giving 


his  life  a  ransom  for  {avrX)  many.  'Christ 
died  for  the  ungodly,'  not  only  for  tho 
weak,  but  for  the  wicked.  The  fact  that  the 
death  of  Christ  for  sins  and  in  behalf  of  sin- 
ners is  made  so  prominent  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment Scriptures  shows  that  he  came  into  the 
world,  not  so  much  to  be  a  teacher  of  men, 
or  an  example  for  men,  as  to  become  a  pro- 
pitiatory Sacrifice  for  their  sins.  Not  but 
that  Jesus  may  be  denominated  the  "Great 
Teacher,"  since  he  laid  down  certain  great 
principles  to  guide  men's  thoughts  and  lives; 
yet  he  did  not  enter  into  the  minutice  of  Chris- 
tian instruction  so  fully  as  did  the  Apostle 
Paul.] 

7.  For.  If  we  supply  some  such  thought 
as  this  (which  very  naturally  suggests  itself), 
'this  was  wonderful  love  indeed,'  the  'for' 
will  have  its  explanation.  Scarcely.  This 
infrequent  word  expresses  the  great  difficulty 
of  the  case,  as  we  might  say,  'it  would  be 
very  hard  to  find  a  man  who  would  do  this.' 
The  only  other  place  where  it  has  the  same 
English  translation  is  the  remarkable  passage 
in  1  Peter  4  :  18  (which,  by  the  way,  is  quoted 
verbatim  from  the  Greek  of  the  LXX  in 
Prov.  11:31).  But  the  same  Greek  word  is 
found  in  Acts  14: 18,  there  translated  scarce. 
and  also  three  times  in  Acts  27 :  In  ver.  7 
(translated  scarce),  in  ver.  8  (translated 
hardly),  and  in  ver.  16,  where  the  last  clause 
may  be  rendered,  "  we  could  scarcely  become 
masters  of  the  boat."  For  a  righteous  man 
Aviil  one  die.  'A  righteous  man'  is  con- 
trasted with  'the  ungodly 'of  the  preceding 
verse.  Hardly  on  behalf  of  a  just  man  will 
any  one  die.i    Yet  peradventure  for  a  good 


(for  example,  1  Cor.  15:3;  Heb.  5  :  31,  appears  to  be  the 
usage  of  the  New  Testament."  [In  Heb.  5  :  3,  the  Re- 
vision text  has  not  vn-ep  but  Jrepl  a/xapriuf.  Among 
other  exceptions  he  might  have  referred  to  Gal.  1:4; 
Heb.  5:1;  7  :  27 ;  10  :  12.]  He  further  says  that  v-nip  in 
its  ethical  sense  has  principally  and  primarily  the 
meaning  in  behalf  of,  or  for  the  good  of,  especially  in 
doctrinal  passages  where  the  atoning  death  of  Christ 
is  alluded  to — for  example,  2  Cor.  5  :  21 ;  yet  there  are 
doctrinal  passages,  as  Gal.  3: 13  (compare  Philem.  13), 
where  it  may  admit  the  second  meaning  (instead  of) 
united  with  the  first,  though  never  exclusively.  See  his 
commentary  on  Gal.  1:4;  3:  13;  also  Winer,  p.  383, 
where  he  says  ' '  v-nip  is  nearly  equivalent  to  a^ri, 
instead  of."— (F.) 


1  Buttmann  (p.  218)  thinks  that  Greek  writers  would 
probably  have  used,  instead  of  this  future,  the  optative 
mood  with  of:  "Scarcely  ivould  any  one  die.'  But  this 
mood  in  the  later  Greek  fell  gradually  into  disuse,  and 
modern  Greek  has  given  it  up  entirely.  In  the  New  Tes- 
tament, as  a  dependent  mood,  it  is  almost  completely 
ignored,  as  it  occurs  but  a  few  times,  and  only  in  the 
writings  of  Luke.  In  Paul's  writings  the  subjunctive  is 
always  used,  even  after  the  so-called  historical  tenses, 
the  imperfect,  aorist,  and  pluperfect.  Winer  thinks 
this  latter  mood  was  at  times  purposely  employed  to 
"  denote  an  action  still  continuing,  either  in  itself  or  in 
its  results,  or  one  frequently  recurring;"  and  Butt- 
mann says  it  is  "  especially  suited  to  the  expression  of 
a  purpose  striving  to  become  actual."— (F.) 


Ch.  v.] 


ROMANS. 


123 


8.  But  God  comniendetb  liis  love  toward  us,  in  that, 
while  we  were  yet  sinners,  Christ  died  lor  us. 


8  die.     But  God  conimendeth  his  own  love  toward  us, 
in  that,  while  we  were  yet  sinners,  Christ  died  for 


man  some  would  even  dare  to  die.    The 

little  word  {yap)  translated  'yet'  is  the  same 
which  is  traii-slated  'for'  in  the  beginning  of 
tlie  verse  and  in  hundreds  of  other  places  in 
tlie  New  Testament.  The  must  satisfactory 
explanation  of  its  being  used  here  is  to  regard 
tlie  passage  as  elliptical,  some  such  exi)ression 
as  this  being  supi)lied  in  thought,  "but  I  do 
not  insist  upon  this,"  and  then  the  'for'  in 
place  of 'yet'  will  be  suitable.  [Concerning 
tiie  tbrce/o?-s  in  this  and  the  preceding  verse, 
Winer  thus  remarks:  "Tiie  first /or  simply 
refers  to  the  f;ict  which  attested  the  love  of 
God  (ver.  5,  Christ's  dying  for  the  ungodly); 
tiie  second  explains,  a  contrario,  how  death 
(of  the  innocent)  for  the  guilty  evinces  trans- 
cendent love;  the  third  substantiates  the 
remark,  'scarcely  for  a  righteous  man,'  etc.] 
In  behalf  of  the  good  man  perhaps  some  one 
even  ventures  to  die.  The  verb  translated 
'would  dare'  is  in  the  indicative  mood,  and 
is  properly  translated  dares  or  ventures. 
Observe  the  distinction  between  'a  righteous 
man'  and  'a  good  man.'  'A  righteous 
man'  is  just  to  others;  'a  good  man'  is 
beneficent  to  others.  That  this  sense  of  the 
word  good  belongs  to  the  Greek  adjective  here 
used  is  confirmed  by  Matt.  20  :  15,  where  it 
plainh'  has  that  sense,  and  also  by  the  article, 
wiiich  emphasizes  the  distinction  between  a 
righteous  man  and  a  good  man,  and,  finallj', 
by  the  nature  of  the  case;  for  it  is  much  less 
difficult  to  believe  that  some  one  would  be 
willing  to  die  for  the  beneficent  man,  to  whom 
he  was  bound  by  the  tie  oi  gratitude  for  some 
great  favor,  than  that  he  would  die  for  njust 
man,  who  had  merely  rendered  to  him  his 
due.  [There  being  nothing  in  the  original 
corresponding  to  the  word  inan,  'the  good' 
has  been  by  some  taken  absolutely  for  that 
which  is  good,  as  by  Godet,  and  in  the  margin 
of  the  Canterbury  Revision,  while  Julius 
Miiller  refers  it  to  God  who  alone  is  good. 
The  contrasted  words  'ungodly,'  'sinners,' 
etc.,  show  that  just  and  good  refer  to  persons, 
while  no  one  certainly  would  die  for  an  ab- 
straction. Meyer,  strange  to  say,  allows  no 
essential  difference  of  idea  in  these  two  words. 
Instead  of  righteous,  the  Syriac,  singularly 
enough,  reads  unrighteous,  which  reading,  in 
Fritzsche's  opinion,  makes  very  good  sense — 


a  sense,  we  should  say,  which  hardly  required 
expressing.  Wordsworth,  in  illustration  of 
one's  willingness  to  die  for  a  benefactor  or  for 
the  sake  of  friendship,  refers  to  the  story  of 
Orestes  and  Pylades,  Alcestis  and  Admetus.] 
For  some,  we  should  here  read  'someone,' 
for  the  pronoun  is  in  the  singular  number; 
whereas  'some,'  without  the  'one,'  when  used 
of  persons  is  properly  plural. 

8.  [The  word  'God'  is  wanting  in  the  im- 
portant Vatican  MS.  B,  and  in  other  copies  its 
position  varies,  for  wiiich  reasons  it  is  rejected 
by  Alford,  though  the  word  'he,'  supplied  by 
Alford,  is  made  to  refer  to  God.  There  seems 
to  be,  however,  no  sufficient  grounds  to  doubt 
its  genuineness.]  Commeudeth.  Makes 
manifest,  and  magnifies,  as  in  3  :  15.  [This 
verb,  primarily,  means  to  set  or  place  to- 
gether; hence  in  later  use  it  becomes  nearly 
equivalent  to  prove,  establish,  or  evince.  Be- 
sides the  places  referred  to,  it  occurs  else- 
where in  this  Epistle  only  in  1G:1,  wiiere  it 
means  to  bring  together  (as  friends),  hence  to 
commend.  The  present  tense  is  used  here  to 
denote  an  alwaj's  existing,  ever-present  truth.] 
His  love.  i/tso7<;n^ore,  so  the  original  reads, 
to  distinguish  it  emphatically  from  the  human 
love  referred  to  in  the  previous  verse  [per- 
haps, also,  to  contrast  it  with  our  want  of  love 
and  goodness.  See  1  John  4  :  10:  "  Uercin  is 
love,  not  that  we  loved  God,  but  that  he  loved 
us.]  Yet,  in  contrast  with  the  note  of  the 
next  verse.  Sinners,  corresponding  with 
'ungodly'  and  'without  strength'  (^er. e), 
and  contrasted  with  'righteous'  and  'good.' 
(Ver.  7.)  "God  showcd  /lis  own  love,  in  that 
Christ  died  for  us;  therefore  he  loved  Christ 
as  himself."  (Bengel.)  Or,  therefore  Christ 
is  God;  both  inferences  are  equally  valid. 
[If  we  compare  this  verse  with  3:25,  we  see 
that  the  propitiatory  offering  of  Christ  was 
the  means  of  exhibiting  God's  righteotisness, 
and,  at  the  same  time,  was  also  an  expression 
of  God's  love.  Paul  does  not  here  represent 
God  the  Father  as  all  justice  and  Christ  as  all 
love,  but  shows  us  rather  that  God's  love  for 
sinful  men  was  the  same  as  Christ's.  Godet 
observes  that  "this  parallel  has  no  meaning 
except  as  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  is  to  God  the 
sacrifice  of  himself."  Christ  has  "died  for  us 
sinners,'"  and  therefore  we  may  be  saved  from 


124 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  V. 


9  Much  more  then,  being  now  justified  by  his  blood, 
we  shall  be  saved  from  wiath  through  him. 

10  For  if,  when  we  were  enemies,  we  were  recon- 
ciled to  God  by  the  death  of  his  Son.;  much  more, 
being  reconciled,  we  shall  be  saved  by  his  life. 


9  us.    Much  more  then,  being  now  justified  i  by  his 

blood,  shall   we  be   saved  from  the   wrath  o/  God 

10  through  him.     For  it,  while  we  were  enemies,  we 

were  reconciled  to   God  through  the  death  of  his 

Son,    much    more,   being    reconciled,  shall    we    be 


wrath  through  him,  and  in  none  other  is  there 
salvation.  (Acts 4:12.)  Abundant  provision  is 
thus  made  for  our  salvation,  yet  we  may  die 
of  starvation  though  food  is  heaped  up  all 
around  us.] 

9.  Much  more  then.  If  he  died  for  us 
while  we  were  yet  sinners,  much  more  then 
will  he  save  us  now  that  we  have  been  made 
righteous  through  his  death.  If  he  made  so 
great  a  sacrifice  to  begin  a  work,  much  more 
will  he  add  that  completion,  without  which 
this  costly  beginning  will  be  of  no  effect. 
Justified  by  [literally,  having  been  justified 
in]  his  blood  is  a  very  strong  expression.  It 
certainly  cannot  import  less  than  that  his 
vicarious  death  was  indispensable  to  our  justi- 
fication. Saved  from  wrath.  Literally, 
saved  from  the  wrath,  which  was  our  con- 
fessed desert  and  our  otherwise  inevitable 
doom.  [Christ  s  precious  blood— in  other 
words,  his  atoning  death  or  "his  accomplished 
and  offered  sacrifice"  (Crenier) — is  here  rep- 
resented as  the  source  or  ground  of  the  sin- 
ner's justification.  Meyer  remarks  that  "faith 
as  the  recipient  (AtiirTiKov)  of  justification  is 
understood  as  a  matter  of  course  (ver.  1),  but  is 
not  mentioned  here,  because  only  what  has 
been  accomplished  by  God  through  Christ  is 
taken  into  consideration."] 

10.  For  if.  ['For'  assigns  a  special  reason 
for  the  certainty  of  our  salvation.]  When 
we  were  enemies.  [Prof.  Boise  remarks 
that  the  word  for  public  enemies  (noXftiioi) 
"so  common  in  classic  Greek  is  not  found  in 
the  New  Testament."]  In  what  sense  is  the 
word  'enemies'  to  be  taken  here?  In  the 
active  sense,  those  who  are  opposed  to  God? 
or  in  the  passive  sense,  those  to  whom  God  is 
opposed?  The  former  is  unquestionably  the 
sense  in  which  the  word  occurs  most  fre- 
quently in  the  Scriptures.  But  it  certainly 
occurs  also  in  the  latter  sense.  Perhaps  11 : 
28,  and  2  Thess.  3:  15,  are  the  clearest  in- 
stances. Here  the  passive  sense,  obnoxious  to 
the  divine  displeasure,  is  required;  for  two 
reasons:  1.  Bccauseit  is  God's  righteous  oppo- 
sition to  us,  rather  than  our  unrighteous  oppo- 
sition to  him,  which  is  directly  removed  by 


the  blood  of  his  Son;  and,  2.  Because  it  is  the 
forensic,  or  judicial  relation  to  God,  not  the 
moral — justification,  not  sanctification  —  of 
which  the  apostle  is  here  treating.  The  best 
critical  expositors  are  agreed  in  ascribing  this 
sense  to  the  word.  Let  the  names  of  De 
Wette,  Alford,  Meyer,  Schaff,  suflSce.  [We 
add  the  names  of  Tholuck,  Fritzsche,  Phil- 
ippi,  Weiss,  Gifford,  and  Godet.  The  latter 
says:  "  The  enmity  must  above  all  belong  to 
him  to  whom  wrath  is  attributed;  and  the 
blood  of  Christ,  through  which  we  have  been 
justified,  did  not  flow  in  the  first  place  to 
work  a  change  in  our  dispositions  Godward, 
but  to  bring  about  a  change  in  God's  conduct 
toward  us.  Otherwise  this  bloody  death  would 
have  to  be  called  a  demonstration  of  love  and 
not  of  righteousness."  On  this  subject  of  the 
influence  of  the  atonement  Godward,  see  Dr. 
Hovey's  "God  with  Us,"  pp.  100-155,  "Man- 
ual of  Theology,"  207,  seq.]  Reconciled  to 
God  by  the  death  of  his  Son  [or,  recon- 
ciled ivith  Qod — that  is,  restored  to  his  favor]. 
While  reconciliation,  much  more  than  enmity, 
may  as  a  general  rule  be  assumed  to  be  mutual, 
the  prominent  idea  here  undoubtedly  is,  not 
the  giving  up  of  our  hostility  to  God,  but  the 
restoration  of  his  favor  to  us.  This  follows 
from  what  was  said  on  the  previous  clause. 
[Dr.  Hovey  thus  paraphrases  this  verse:  "For 
if,  when  we  Avere  the  objects  of  God's  wrath 
(like  rebels  whom  the  king  counts  as  enemies), 
we  were  put  in  a  condition  to  receive  his 
favor,  by  the  death  of  his  Son,  how  much 
more,  having  been  put  in  that  condition,  shall 
we  be  saved  in  his  life."  See  also  W^eiss' 
"  Biblical  Theology,"  Vol.  I,  p.  428.]  Much 
more.  ["An  argument  a  fortiori.  If  the 
greater  benefit  has  been  bestowed,  the  less 
will  not  be  withheld.  If  Christ  has  died  for 
his  enemies,  he  will  surely  save  his  friends." 
(Hodge.)  "  When  one  has  done  the  most  for 
his  enemies,  he  does  not  refuse  the  least  to  his 
friends^  (Godet.)  How  much  God  has 
done  for  his  enemies  may  be  gathered  from  the 
words:  'death  of  his  Son.']  Being  recon- 
ciled (more  exactly,  having  been  reconciled), 
we  shall  be  saved  by  his  life.    It  is  now 


Ch.  v.] 


ROMANS. 


125 


11  And  not  only  «o,  but  we  also  joy  in  God  tbrough  ;  11  saved' by  lus  life;  and  not  only  so,  ^  but  we  also  re- 
cur Lord  Jesus  Christ,  by  whoui  we  have  now  received  1  joico  in  (iod  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  through 
the  atoueuieut.  I        whom  we  have  now  received  the  reconciliation. 

1  Gr.  in.    'i  Gr.  but  alto  glorying. 


assumed,  that  the  subjective  reconciliation, 
the  removal  of  our  opposition  to  God,  has 
also  taken  place;  but  nu  stress  is  laid  on  that 
assumption.  'By  his  life" — literally,  iti  his 
life  [in  vital  union  with  his  life  (Schaft")  ;  in 
the  fact  that  he  lives  and  intercedes.  (Boise.) 
". Justification, "  says  Godet,  *•  rests  only  on 
faith  in  the  death  of  Chri.«t.  Sanotification 
flows  from  the  life  of  Christ  by  the  work  of 
the  Holy  Spirit."  Compare  John  14:  19, 
"Because  I  live  ye  shall  live  also."  Prof. 
Stuart  remarks  that  this  passage  (ver.  e-io) 
"seems  to  be  more  direct,  in  respect  to  the 
perseverance  of  the  saints,  than  almost  any 
other  passage  in  tlie  Scriptures"].  The  close 
relation  in  which  he  placed  him.«elf  to  us,  by 
dj'ing  for  our  sins,  carries  with  it  our  being 
associated  with  him  in  his  resurrection  life. 
This  topic  is  treated  more  fully  in  the  next 
chapter. 

We  may  regard  the  whole  work  of  Christ  as 
a  Saviour, /or  us  and  in  us,  beginning  with 
his  vicarious  propitiation  for  our  sin.«,  pro- 
ceeding with  our  justification,  and  culminating 
in  our  salvation,  as  virtually  comprehended 
in  our  reconciliation,  with  this  distinction  be- 
tween tlie  expres«ions  ive  luere  reconciled  and 
having  been  reconciled,  in  ver.  10,  that  whereas 
in  the  former  expression  the  first  step  in  the 
process,  propitiation,  is  most  prominent,  in 
the  latter  expression,  by  a  very  natural  pro- 
gress in  the  thought,  the  second  step,  justifica- 
tion, is  most  prominent. 

Kecurring  now  to  ver.  5,  which  was  intro- 
duced by  the  remark  that  the  apostle  is  now 
to  set  forth,  as  a  fourth  prerogative  of  the 
justified  believer,  the  certainty  of  his  hope, 
we  have  this  course  of  thought  in  the  devel- 
opment of  that  subject.  God  has  alreadj' 
shown  the  fullness  of  his  love  to  us  by  giving 
his  S))irit  (^er. s),  by  giving  his  S(m  to  die  for 
us  while  we  were  j'et  sinners  (ver. e-s),  and  by 
having  thus  begun  the  work  of  our  salvation 
when  we  were  enemies,  he  has  given  the 
surest  pledge  that  lie  will  complete  it  now 
that  we  are  reconciled  to  him.  (ver.9,  lo.)  And 
now  to  sum  up  all  in  a  fifth  blessing,  we  boast 


ourselves  in  God,  having  received,  tlirough 
Christ,  this  wonderful  reconciliation  witli  liim. 
11.  It  is  very  plain  that  the  apostle  would 
have  us  regard  what  he  speaks  of  in  this  verse 
as  distinct  from,  and  added  to,  all  the  forego- 
ing. The  introductory  words — and  not  only 
so,  but  we  also — manifestly  imply  this,  i 
[But  we  also  joy  iu  God.  Literally,  but 
also  glorying.  AVith  this  participle  most 
commentators  supply  the  present  tense  of  tlie 
verb  tJ  be.  The  words  imply  not  only  that 
we  are  saved;  but  that  we  have  a  joyous 
consciousness  of  our  salvation.  See  Winer, 
p.  351.]  And  indeed  this  boasting  in  a  God 
reconciled  to  us  is  something  more  than 
peace  with  God  (ver. 5)  ;  sometliing  more  than 
boasting  in  the  hope  of  future  glory  (ver.2); 
something  more  than  boasting  in  tribulations 
(ver.  3, 4) ;  something  difterent  from  the  assured 
certainty  of  our  Christian  hope,  (ver.5-10.)  It 
is  a  higher  experience  than  an}'  of  these,  even 
that  of  which  tlie  Psalmist  sjieaks,  in  Ps.  34: 
2;  44:8.  Have  now  received  the  atone- 
ment. The  word  'atonement'  is  used  no- 
where else  in  our  New  Testament.  The 
Greek  word  (KOTaAAovrj),  to  which  it  here  corre- 
sponds, is,  however,  used  in  two  other  places, 
in  11  :  15  and  in  2  Cor.  4  :  18,  19,  in  which  it  is 
more  suitably  translated  reconciling  or  recon- 
ciliation. We  say  this  last  is  the  more  suit- 
able translation,  inasmuch  as  the  word  atone- 
ment has  acquired  in  theological  languages 
fixed,  technical  sense,  which  does  not  corre- 
spond with  the  sense  of  the  Greek  word  here 
used.  [Paul  in  3  :  25  spoke  of  Christ,  set  forth 
in  his  blood,  as  our  propitiation,  and  he  often 
uses  the  word  for  redemption  (oiroAuTpoMrw) ;  but 
the  most  proper  word  for  atonement  (iAacrMos) 
is  employed  not  by  him  but  by  the  discijile 
of  love.  See  1  John  2:2;  4:10.  Compare, 
also,  the  corresponding  verb  (iAao-KOftioi)  in  Heb. 
2:17.]  The  noun  here  used  is  closely  con- 
nected both  in  form  and  meaning  with  the 
verb  translated  reconciled  in  ver.  10.  [The 
fact  that  we  receiiie  rather  than  make  or  give 
reconciliation  shows  the  reconcilement  to  be  in 
God's  mind  or  disposition  rather  than  in  our'. 


1  The  fie  and  aAAi,  corresponding  to  the  German  aber  and  sondern,  may  thus  be  rendered:  Xot  only  so, 
however,  but  also,  etc. 


126 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  V. 


At  least,  its  primary  reference  is  to  the  new 
relation  which  God  sustains  to  us.  Prof. 
Cremer,  after  referring  to  some  doubtful  pas- 
sages, says:  "But  Rom.  5:11  is  decidedly 
opposed  to  the  supposition  that  either  a  change 
of  feeling  on  the  part  of  man,  brought  about 
by  the  divine  redemption,  is  referred  to,  or 
an  alteration  in  his  relation  to  God  to  be 
accomplished  by  man  himself.  It  is  God  who 
forms  the  relation  between  himself  and  hu- 
manity anew;  the  part  of  humanity  is  to 
accept  this  reinstatement.  .  .  .  God  estab- 
lishes a  relationship  of  peace  between  him  and 
us  by  doing  away  with  that  whi;:h  made  him 
our  adversary  (ii'TifiiKos),  which  directed  his 
anger  against  us.  .  .  .  Thus  reconciliation 
denotes  the  New  Testament  divine  and  saving 
act  of  redemption  (offoAurpwo-ts),  in  so  far  as 
God  himself,  by  his  taking  upon  himself  and 
providing  an  atonement,  establishes  that  rela- 
tionship of  peace  with  mankind  which  the 
demands  of  liis  justice  had  hitherto  pre- 
vented." SoDeWette:  "We  must  think  of 
this  reconciliation  as  the  removal  of  the  wrath 
of  God,  ver.  9."  And  in  this  view  nearlj^  all 
commentators  of  note  coincide  "Nor  is  it 
any  contradiction  that  while  God's  anger 
rested  on  mankind,  his  love  instituted  a 
scheme  of  reconciliation,  because  the  enmity 
falls  only  on  sin;  the  love,  on  the  other  hand, 
regards  sinners."  (Philippi.)  "Since  this 
enmity  of  God  is  only  directed  against  man 
as  a  sinner,  it  naturally  does  not  exclude 
grace  which  seeks  to  remove  the  cause  of  this 
enmity  and  thereby  to  render  reconciliation 
possible."     ("Weiss,  I,  429.)     The  verb  used 

here    {KaraWaat^U))    OCCUrS  six  times.       (5:10;lCor. 

7:11;  2  Cor.  5 :  18,  19,  20.)    Another   related    word 

(SiaAXitrtToi")   is    found   OnCC  (Matt.  5:24),   "first   be 

reconciled  to  thy  brother."  In  this  case  it  is 
the  injured  or  offended  brother  of  thine  who 
is  really  to  become  reconciled,  and  this  ex- 
ample, with  that  of  1  Sam.  29 :  4  ip  the  Septu- 
agint  (see  Josephus'  "Antiquities,"  Y,  2,  8), 
shows  us  that  in  the  expression  'we  were 
reconciled  to  (or  with)  God,'  God  may  be 
regarded  as  the  party  who  was  at  enmity, 
whose  wrath,  through  the  expiation  of  Christ, 
has  been  removed,  so  that  we  may  be  received 


into  his  favor.  And  this  view  is  still  further 
confirmed  by  the  general  representation  of 
Scripture,  that  our  reconciliation  and  justifi- 
cation are  effected  by  the  sufferings,  the  death, 
the  blood  of  Christ,  as  a  sacrifice  for  the  sins 
of  the  world.  Still,  the  "Christian  reconcili- 
ation," as  Trench  remarks  in  his  "Synonyms 
of  the  New  Testament,"  "has  two  sides,"  the 
second  and  subordinate  one  being  our  recon- 
ciliation toward  God,  "the  daily  deposition, 
under  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  of  the 
enmity  of  the  old  man  toward  God.  2  Cor. 
5:  20;  comp.nre  1  Cor.  7  :  11.  All  attempts  to 
make  this  secondary  to  be  indeed  the  primary 
meaning  and  intention  of  the  word,  rest  not 
on  an  unprejudiced  exegesis,  but  on  a  fore- 
gone determination  to  get  rid  of  the  reality 
of  God's  anger  against  the  sinner."  Accord- 
ingly, our  hymn  revisers,  who  have  substi- 
tuted "To  God  I"m  reconciled"  for  "My 
God  is  reconciled,"  have  made  a  "secondary 
meaning  of  the  word"  to  usurp  the  place  of 
the  primar3'.  For  Scripture  teaches  us  that 
God  when  he  reconciled  all  things  to  himself 
through  Jesus  Christ,  through  the  expiation 
he  made  for  our  sins  on  the  cross,  by  virtue 
of  which  expiation  the  guilty  who  deserve  to 
die  may  be  justified  and  thus  saved  from  de- 
served wrath  (ver.  9),  set  up  a  relationsliip  of 
peace  not  before  existing  (Cremer) ;  and  tliat 
Christ,  by  his  propitiation  and  by  bis  perfect 
obdience  rendered  to  the  will  of  God,  has 
effected  conditions  of  peace  between  God 
and  the  sinner,  whereby  he  now  comes  and 
"preaches  peace"  to  a  guilty  world.  "Recon- 
ciliation," says  Mej'er,  "has  taken  place  o6- 
jectively  through  the  death  of  Christ,  but  is 
realized  subjectively  only  when  men  become 
believers,  whereby  the  reconciliation  becomes 
appropriated  to  them."  Compare  2  Cor.  5: 
18-20;  Col.  1:20-22;  Eph.  2:16,  17;  1  John 
4:10.     In  the  examples  from  Ephesians  and 

Colossians     another     word     (arroKaTaWdaaio)     is 

used.  Both  sides  of  the  Christian  reconcilia- 
tion are,  we  suppose,  presented  to  view  in  2 
Cor.  5:18-20;  Col.  1:  20-22. ]i 

The  apostle  has  now  completed  his  account 
of  the  individual  blessings  secured  to  the  be- 
liever by  the  gospel  way  of  justification  ;  and 


1  On  the  connection  of  iAoo-icojiai  (to  make  or  be  pro- 
pitious) with  reconciliation  on  the  part  of  God,  see 
Cremer's  "  Biblico-Theological  Lexicon,"  Article  (caroA- 
Xiirvo) ;  ou  the  deep  meaning  of  iAocrjiids  (propitiation 


or  atonement\  see  Trench's  "Synonyms,"  p.  292;  and 
on  this  general  subject,  Dr.  Hovey's  "  God  with  Us,"  pp. 
114,  255. 


Ch.  v.] 


ROMANS. 


127 


VI  Wherefore,  as  l)y  oue  man  sin  entered  into  the 
wurlil,  iiiiil  deiith  by  sin  ;  and  so  death  passed  upon  all 
men,  lor  that  all  have  sinned: 


12      Therefore,  as  through  one  man  sin  entered  into 
the  world,  and  death  through  sin ;  and  so  death 


from  this  point  to  the  end  of  the  chapter  he 
treats  of  the  way  in  which  the  human  race  is 
affectfd  by  this  newly  revealed  method  of 
justification.  This  is  one  of  the  most  important, 
and  one  of  the  most  difficult  sections  of  the 
epistle.  [The  subject  of  which  this  section 
treats  is  in  itself  one  of  utmost  difl^icult^', 
having  to  do  with  the  "stubborn,  terrible  fact 
of  the  universal  dominion  of  sin  and  death 
over  the  entire  race."  (Schaff.)  Alford  gives 
to  this  section  (ver.  12.19)  the  following  title: 
"TIijc  bringing  in  of  reconciliation  and  life  by 
Christ  in  its  analogy  tP  the  bringing  in  of  sin 
and  death  b}'  Adam."  Godet  very  happily 
introduces  the  topic  which  follows  in  these 
words:  "After  thus  expounding  in  a  first 
section  (i:  if*-:);  m)  universal  condemnation,  in 
a  second  section  (3:  21-0:  u)  universal  justifica- 
tion, there  remains  nothing  more  for  the  apos- 
tle to  do  than  to  compare  these  two  vast  dis- 
jiensations  by  bringing  together  their  two 
points  of  departure.  Such  is  the  subject  of 
the  third  section  which  closes  this  funda- 
mental part."  Dr.  SchaflT  gives  very  full 
notes  on  these  verses  in  his  edition  of  Lange's 
"  Commentar3',"  also  a  special  section  enti- 
tled: "Historical  Statements  on  the  Differ- 
ent Theories  of  Original  Sin  and  Imputa- 
tion."* We  may  here  observe  that  to  Paul 
alone  of  all  New  Testament  writers,  was  it 
given  to  set  forth  the  doctrine  of  our  race  con- 
nection with  Adam's  transgression,  a  doctrine 
nevertheless  quite  plainly'  intimated  in  the  Old 
Testament.  Yet  "like  a  skillful  physician 
the  apostle  goes  not  only  to  the  root  and  foun- 
tainhead  of  the  evil,  but  also  to  the  root  and 
fountainhead  of  the  cure."     (Dr.  Schaff.)] 

12.  Wherefore  (or,  more  properly,  Utere- 
fore)  connects  what  follows  as  a  conclusion 
from  ver.  11,  especially  with  the  last  clause, 
which  may  be  regarded  as  a  nummary  of  the 
preceding  verses  of  this  chapter.  [Since  recon- 
ciliation contains  an  allusion  to  wrath,  and  so 
to  condemnation  as  well  as  justification,  the 
connection  may  be  thus  conceived,  as  by  Go- 
det:  "Since,  condemned  as  we  all  were,  we 


have  found  reconciliation  in  Christ,  there  is 
therefore  between  our  relation  to  him  and 
our  relation  to  the  head  of  natural  humanity 
the  following  resemblance."]  Reconciliation 
through  Christ  is  now  to  be  presented  in  a 
more  general  aspect,  as  affecting  the  destiny 
of  the  whole  race,  and  in  a  new  form,  as  illus- 
trated by  a  comparison  between  Adam  and 
Christ,  or,  more  precisely,  between  the  con- 
sequences to  the  race  of  its  relation  to  each. 
As  by  one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world. 
['As.'  This  seems  to  begin  a  comparison,  but 
we  find  no  corresponding  so  in  what  follows. 
A  simple  and  direct  apodosis  of  the  compari- 
son would  probably  have  run  thus:  So  also 
by  one  man  righteousness  entered  into  the 
world  and  through  righteousness  life  likewise 
entered.  Tholuck,  Philippi,  Meyer  find  the 
second  member  of  the  comparison  virtually 
in  ver.  14,  which  speaks  of  Christ  as  the  anti- 
t^-pe  of  Adam.  Most  expositt)rs  find  it  in- 
cluded in  ver.  18,  where  the  whole  subject  is 
resumed  and  completed.  As  the  word  as  does 
not  always  require  a  so  (compare  Matt.  25: 
14),  some  regard  this  as  as  introducing  the 
second  member  of  the  comparison  in  some 
such  improbable  way  as  this:  "Therefore 
stands  Christ  in  a  similar  relation  to  mankind 
as  Adam  through  whom  sin  and  death  entered 
into  the  world"  (DeWette),  or,  "therefore  we 
received  and  appropriated  the  reconciliation 
through  Christ  in  the  same  manner  as  by  one 
man,"  etc.  (Lange  and,  similarlj',  Alford.) 
See  Dr.  Arnold's  remarks  further  on.]  The 
occasion  on  which  this  comparison  is  intro- 
duced accounts  for  the  mention  of  Adam  only, 
without  any  allusion  to  Eve.  The  design  of 
the  apostle  is  "to  compare  the  One  man  who^ 
as  the  bringer  of  salvation,  has  become  the 
beginner  of  the  new  humanity  with  the  one 
man  who,  as  beginner  of  the  old  humanity, 
became  so  destructive,  in  which  collective 
reference  the  woman  recedes  into  the  back- 
ground." (Meyer.)  Three  reasons  for  the 
omission  of  Eve's  name  are  given  by  Bengel : 
1.  Adam    had    received    the   commandment 


1  These  terms  are,  we  believe,  now  commonly  distin-  1  in,  and  directly  occasioned  by,  the  sin  of  Adam,  while 
guished  from  each  other — or  at  least  may  be  properly  |  original  sin  has  reference  to  the  natural  proclivity  of 
distinguished— in  this  way  :  imputed  sin  has  reference    the  human  heart  to  evil. — (F.) 
to  the  condemnation  and  death  ol  our  race  as  grounded  J 


128 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  V. 


(apparently  before  the  creation  of  Eve,  Gen. 
2:16,  17).  2.  He  was  the  head,  not  only  of 
his  race,  but  also  of  Eve.  3.  If  Adam  had  not 
obeyed  his  wife,  onl^'  one  would  have  sinned. 
(Sin  would  have  ended  where  it  began,  with 
Eve.)  [Dr.  Shedd,  however,  would  include 
both  Adutn  and  Eve  under  the  general  term 
man  (avepaiiros),  as  in  Gen.  5:2,  "God  called 
their  name  Adam,"  or  man.  Fritzsche  adopts 
the  first  of  BengeVs  reasons,  and  thus  finds  an 
excuse  for  Eve  but  none  for  Adam,  making 
her  offense  relate  rather  to  the  matter  of  time 
and  his  to  the  matter  of  guilt.  In  this  going 
back  to  Adam,  our  Epistle,  as  many  exposi- 
tors have  noticed,  is  strikingly  distinguished 
from  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians.  "In  the 
latter,"  as  Godet  says,  "  where  Paul  is  attack- 
ing Judeo-Christianity,  his  argument  starts 
from  the  theocratic  history,  from  Abraham. 
In  the  former,  which  expounds  the  relation 
of  the  gospel  to  human  nature,  Jewish  and 
Gentile,  the  argument  starts  from  general 
history,  from  Adam,  the  father  of  all  man- 
kind. From  the  very  beginning  of  the  Epistle 
the  standpoint  is  universal."]  The  New  Testa- 
ment plainly  confirms  the  account  in  Genesis, 
by  recognizing  Eve  as  the  first  transgressor, 
in  the  only  two  passages  where  she  is  named — 
2Cor.  11:3;  lTim.2:13.  Adam  is  mentioned 
in  the  following  places:  Luke3:38;  Rom. 5: 
14,  twice  ;  1  Cor.  15  :  22,  45 ;  1  Tim,  2  :  13,  14 ; 
Jude  14.  Sin,  not  merely  in  the  sense  of 
actual  transgression,  but  sin  as  a  ruling  power 
or  principle.  Throughout  the  whole  section 
'sin'  is  carefully  distinguished  from  both 
"transgression"  (vr. u)  and  "offence."  (ver. 
15, 16, 17, 18, 20.)  It  is  personified  and  represented 
as  an  active  power.  Neither  of  the  other  two 
■words  above  named  could  be  so  represented 
■with  equal  propriety.  Entered  into  the 
world — that  is,  into  this  human  world  [the 
■world  of  humanity,  which  by  Paul  was  re- 
garded as  then  existing].  The  account  of  its 
entrance  into  this  world  shows  plainly  that  it 
had  entered  into  the  universe  before.  And 
death  by  sin.  [Literally,  and  through  sin, 
death  likewise  entered.  In  Meyer's  opinion, 
"that  Adam  was  created  immortal  our  pas- 
sage does  not  affirm,  and  1  Cor.  15 :  47  contains 
the  opposite."  He  further  says:  "  If  Adam 
had  not  sinned,    ...   he  would  have  become 


immortal  through  eating  of  the  tree  of  life  in 
Paradise.  As  he  has  sinned,  however,  the 
consequence  thereof  necessarily  was  'death,' 
not  only  for  himself,  seeing  that  he  had  to 
leave  Paradise,  but  for  all  his  posterity  like- 
wise. From  this  consequence,  which  the  sin 
of  Adam  had  for  all,  it  results  .  .  .  that  the 
f&ll  of  Adam  was  the  collective  fall  of  the 
entire  race,  in  so  far  as  in  fact  all  forfeited 
Paradise  and  herewith  incurred  deatli."  Paul 
in  this  section  seeks  not  so  much  the  origin  of 
sin  as  that  of  death.  (Godet.)  Hence,  one 
chief  thing  which  we  look  for  in  this  discus- 
sion is  an  explanation  of  the  fact  of  death.] 
'  By  sin  ' — that  is,  'through  sin,'  as  the  means, 
and  on  account  of  sin,  as  its  appointed  pen- 
alty. What  are  we  to  understand  by  'death' 
in  this  passage?  Primarily,  it  means  physi- 
cal death,  the  separation  of  the  soul  from  the 
body.  Whatever  else  it  tnay  include,  it  must 
include  this,  otherwise  there  would  be  no  pro- 
priety in  using  the  word,  and  we  may  be  sure 
the  word  would  not  have  been  used  had  the 
plain,  literal  sense  of  the  wwd  formed  no  part 
of  its  meaning  here.  And  this  is  confirmed 
by  ver.  14.  But  certainly  something  m,ore 
than  physical  death  is  included  in  the  word 
in  this  connection.  In  Gen.  2  :  17,  we  read 
that  God  said  to  Adam,  "in  the  day  that  thou 
eatest  thereof  thou  shalt  surely  die."  Adam 
did  not  suffer  physical  death  on  the  very  day 
of  his  transgression.  But  he  did  sufler  spirit- 
ual death,  for  sin  is  the  separation  of  the  soul 
from  God,  the  fountain  of  life.  And  this 
spiritual  death,  unless  some  remedial  agency 
comes  in,  naturally  leads  to,  and  culminates 
in,  eternal  death.  See  how  sin  and  death  are 
habitually  connected  in  the  Scriptures.     (Cen. 

2:17;   Ezek.  18  :  4  ;   Rom.  6  :  16,  21,  23  ;   7:10,11;  8:13.)       The 

death  of  the  body  is  the  palpable,  representa- 
tive test  fact  around  which  our  reasonings 
naturally  gather.i  ["In  order,"  says  Prof 
Cremer,  "to  the  clear  perception  and  under- 
standing of  .  .  .  the  New  Testament  use  of 
this  word  (death),  we  must  hold  fast  and 
abide  by  the  fact  that  death,  as  the  punish- 
ment pronounced  by  God  upon  sin,  has  a 
punitive  significance.  .  .  .  Death,  therefore, 
is  a  very  comprehensive  term,  denoting  all 
the  punitive  consequences  of  sin.  .  .  .  Hence 
we  find  that,  according  to  the  context,  the 


1  See  Appendix  B, 


Ch.  v.] 


ROMANS. 


129 


reference  is  either  (a)  to  death  as  the  objec- 
tive sentence  and  punishment  appointed  for 
man,  or  (6)  to  death  as  the  state  in  which 
man  is  as  condemned  through  sin."  We  sup- 
pose its  ciiief  reference  here  is  to  physical 
death,  tiie  death  which  reigned  from  Adam 
to  Moses,  (ver.  14.)  See  1  Cor.  15  :  21.  Meyer 
and  Godet  refer  to  this  solely.  The  tin  of 
EJen  as  causative  of  our  fall  and  death  is 
referred  to  in  the  Apocrypha  (i  EsdrasT-.  48)  : 
"O  tiiou  Adam,  what  hast  thou  done?  for 
tliDUgh  it  was  tliou  that  sinned,  thou  art  not 
fallen  alone,  but  we  all  that  come  of  thee;  " 
al.so  Eccles.  25:21:  "Of  the  woman  came  the 
beginning  of  sin,  and  through  her  we  all  die;  " 
and  compare  Wisd.  2  :  24.  De  Wette  says: 
"No  exegete  can  doubt  tiiat  Paul  teaches  the 
extension  both  of  sin  and  death  from  Adam 
to  mankind."]  And  so  death  passed  upon 
all  men.  'And  so' — that  is,  in  agreement 
with,  and  by  reason  of,  this  connection  be- 
tween sin  and  death.  'Passed  upon  all  men.' 
We  have  the  same  verb  here  which  in  the 
first  clause  is  translated  entered,  but  with  a 
different  preposition.  The  more  exact  repre- 
sentation of  the  original  would  be  given  by 
translating  the  two  clauses  thus:  "Sin  came 
info  the  world;"  "death  cayne  through"  to 
all  men.  The  representation  would  thus  be 
made  perfectly  correspondent  to  the  original, 
if  what  we  call  the  />re-positions  could  really 
be  /3re-posed  or  /ire-fixed,  as  tliey  are  in  the 
Greek,  instead  of  being  yjos^-posed,  as  the 
idiom  of  our  language  requires  them  to  be. 
AVe  cannot  say,  as  the  Greeks  did,  "sin  into- 
came  the  world,"  and  death  "  through-canie 
to  all  men."  [This  declaration,  'and  so  death 
passed  through  unto  all  men,'  supposes  the 
fact  stated  in  the  next  clause, 'that  all  sinned' 
— that  is,  either  collectively  in  Adam  or  as  in- 
dividuals or  both.  Pfleiderer,  as  quoted  by 
Weiss,  '  maintains  that  there  is  a  double  reason 
assigned  for  death  passing  unto  all ;  namely, 
the  sin  of  Adam  and  the  sin  of  all,  and  that 
this  is  explicable  only  on  the  assumption 
that  the  sin  of  Adam  was  as  such  already  the 
sin  of  all.'  If  we  explain  this  passage  by 
tl)e  nearly  parallel  statement  of  ver.  15,  "the 
many  died,"  etc.,  it  would  appear  that  death 
was  made  to  extend  to  all  men,  not  primarily 


and  solely  by  reason  of  their  individual 
offenses,  but  by  "the  trespass  of  the  one." 
Even  Prof.  Stuart  acknowledges  that  the 
'and  so'  of  this  clause  intimates  that  "both 
the  sins  of  men  and  their  condemnation  stand 
connected  in  some  way  or  other  with  the  first 
offense  by  Adam."  De  Wette  remarks  that 
this  passing  through  of  death  upon  ail  men 
differs  ivon\  its  entering  into  the  world  "as 
going  from  house  to  house  differs  from  entering 
into  a  town.']'  For  that  all  have  sinned. 
The  original  expression  which  our  translators 
rendered  '  for  that '  has  been  variously  under- 
stood— "in  whom,"  or  "in  which  man"  ["iu 
v>hoin  all  have  sinned"],  say  Origen,  Augus- 
tine, Beza,Vulgate,  Wycliflfe;  "on  the  suppo- 
sition that,"  "in  as  far  as,"  says  Rothe  [so 
Julius  Miiller] ;  but  our  translators  were 
doubtless  correct  in  saying  'for  that'  [which 
is  nearly  equivalent  to  'because';  compare 
2  Cor.  5:4].  We  may  expand  this  a  little 
by  sa3Mng  "upon  the  occasion  that,"  which 
would  be  a  very  close  adherence  to  the  origi- 
nal, and  which  would  be  equivalent  to  the 
still  more  expanded  form,  "on  the  ground  of 
the  fact  that"  all  sinned.  The  most  exact 
parallel  in  form,  sense,  and  translation  is  2 
Cor.  5:  14.  Life  was  suspended  on  a  certain 
condition — obedience;  death  was  suspended 
on  a  certain  condition — disobedience.  All 
disobeyed,  in  consequence  of  which  death, 
the  original  penalty  of  disobedience,  came 
through  to  all  men.  'All  sinned'  is  more 
exact  than  'all  have  sinned.'  The  verb  here 
is  in  the  same  tense  as  the  two  preceding 
verbs,  and  th«re  is  no  more  reason  why  this 
should  be  translated  'have  sinned'  than  why 
thej'  should  be  translated  'has  entered'  and 
'has  passed.'  But  how  are  we  to  understand 
the  expression  'all  sinned'?  Four  different 
answers  to  this  question  may  be  briefly  no- 
ticed : 

1.  All  have  actually  and  personally  sinned: 

2.  All  have  become  corrupt  and  sinful : 

3.  All  did  actually  sin  in  Adam  : 

4.  All  virtually  sinned  in  Adam,  as  the 
head  of  the  human  race,  and  the  introducer 
of  sin,  which  passes  through  to  all. 

1.  The  first  view  [advocated  by  Tholuck, 
De  Wette,  Fritzsche,   Reuss,  Lange,  Barnes, 


1  "  eis  with  persons  is  not  simply  equivalent  to  ^poi  (to),  but  involves  the  idea  of  mingling  with  and  associ- 
ation."   (Ellicott.)— (F.) 


130 


EOMANS. 


[Ch.  V. 


Stuart,  Kipley,]  is  inconsistent  with  the  proper 
force  of  the  tense  of  the  verb,  which  properly 
signifies,  uotdosin,  nor  Aawe  sinned,  nov  are  ac- 
customed to  sin  ;  but  simply  sinned  :  their  sin 
is  regarded  as  one  act  in  some  definite  past  time. 
[The  connection  of  the  "all  sinned"  in  3: 
23,  whether  it  exclude  all  reference  to  the 
primal  sin  or  not,  is  wholly  diiferent  from  the 
"sinned"  in  this  passage.]  This  first  view  is 
also  inconsistent  with  the  design  of  the  pass- 
age, which  is  to  show  that  Adam's  sin,  and 
not  our  own  apart  from  his,  is  the  cause  of 
death.  It  is  inconsistent  with  ver.  13,  14, 
which  are  intended  to  prove  what  is  here 
asserted  :  but  they  do  not  prove  that  all  have 
actually  sinned,  but  rather  the  reverse.  It  is 
inconsistent  with  the  analogy  between  Adam 
and  Christ.  There  would  not  be,  according 
to  this  view,  that  resemblance  between  the 
way  in  which  we  become  sinners  through 
Adam,  and  the  way  in  which  we  become 
righteous  through  Christ,  which  is  aflSrmed  in 
ver.  19.  [Dr.  Hodge  says:  "It  would  make 
the  apostle  teach  that  as  all  men  die  because 
they  personally  sin,  so  all  men  live  because 
they  are  personally  and  inherently  righteous. 
This  is  contrary,  not  only  to  this  whole  pass- 
age, but  to  all  Paul's  teaching,  and  to  the 
whole  gospel."  We  think  the  stanza  of 
Spengler,  quoted  by  Miiller  in  his  "  Christian 
Doctrine  of  Sin,"  to  be  doctrinally  far  more 
Pauline : 

As  now  we  all  by  foreign  guilt 

In  Adam  are  reviled, 
Therefore  we  all  by  foreign  grace 

In  Christ  are  reconciled.] 

It  is  inconsistent  with  the  facts  of  the  case.  It 
is  not  true  that  all  die  because  all  have  actually 
and  personally  sinned.  Death  is  more  exten- 
sive than  personal  transgression.  This  Paul 
himself  declares  in  ver.  14.  Infants  die, 
thougb  they  have  not  personally  sinned. 

2.  The  second  view  [advocated  by  Mel- 
ancthon,  Calvin,  Prof.  Turner]  is  also  incon- 
sistent with  the  meaning  of  the  word,  and 
with  the  nature  of  the  comparison.  The  verb 
does  not  mean  to  become  corrupt  and  sinful, 
but  simply  to  sin.  [Alford  blends  the  first 
and  second  view  together,  making  the  sin  to 
be  "both  original  and  actual :  in  the  seed^  as 
planted  in  the  nature  by  the  sin  of  our  fore- 
father, and  in  the  fruit,  as  developed  by  each 


conscious  responsible  individual  in  his  own 
practice."] 

8.  The  third  view  [Haldane's,  Edwards', 
Shedd's,]  is  regarded  as  simply  inconceivable. 
The  appeal  to  Heb.  7  :  9,  10,  does  not  avail  to 
make  it  conceivable,  for  the  writer  there  takes 
pains  to  apprise  us  that  he  is  not  using  lan- 
guage in  a  Literal  sense:  "As  I  may  so  say" 
is  a  not  uncommon  phrase  in  tlie  classics,  in 
introducing  a  highly  figurative  expression, 
but  is  found  nowhere  else  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. 

4.  "We  are  therefore  shut  up  to  this  fourth 
sense  of  the  expression,  that  all  virtually 
sinned  in  the  sin  of  Adam,  who  was  the  source, 
and  then  indeed,  with  Eve,  was  the  whole  of 
the  human  race.  This  interpretation  is  de- 
manded by  the  context :  by  ver.  13  and  14, 
which  contain  the  proof  of  what  is  here 
asserted;  by  ver.  15-19,  which  assume  this 
meaning  as  proved;  and  by  ver.  18,  19,  which 
complete  the  comparison  between  Adam  and 
Christ  in  accordance  with  this  view.  [Ver. 
12  may  be  properly  explained  by  the  plainer 
and  fuller  assertions  of  ver.  15-19,  since  these 
assertions  rest  on  this  verse  as  a  foundation. 
Notice  the  'for  if  in  ver.  15,  17,  'so  then  '  in 
ver.  18,  'for  as'  in  ver.  19.]  And  it  is  con- 
firmed, finally,  \>j  such  passages  as  1  Cor.  15: 
22,  and  2  Cor.  5:  14,  which  should  be  trans- 
lated, "having  judged  this,  that  one  died  for 
all,  therefore  they  all  died.''  [Some  inter- 
pret the  phrase,  'for  that  all  sinned,'  as  mean- 
ing that  they  sinned  putatively  or  represen- 
tatively ;  "in  other  words,  they  were  regarded 
and  treated  as  sinners  on  account  of  Adam's 
sin."  (Hodge.)  To  this  view  it  is  commonly 
objected  that  we  did  not  elect  Adam  to  be  our 
agent  or  representative  (yet  God  might  have 
appointed  him  as  such),  and  it  does  not  appear 
that  he  consciously  acted  as  such.  Dr.  Schaflf 
says  that  Prof.  Hodge  "  by  rejecting  the  real- 
istic theory  of  a  participation  of  Adam's  pos- 
terity in  his  fall,  loses  the  basis  for  a  just 
imputation,  andresolvesit  intoalegal  fiction." 
Only  a  sinful  and  guilty  being  can  be  the 
subject  of  the  displeasure  of  a  holy  and  right- 
eous Grod.  "We  do  not  object."  he  says,  "to 
the  doctrine  of  imputation  in  itself,  but  simply  i 
to  that  form  of  it  which  ignores  or  denies  the  I 
vital  nature  of  our  connection  with  Adam 
and  with  Christ,  as  plainly  taught  in  tliis 
whole  section.     Adam  is  our  natural  repre- 


Ch.  v.] 


ROMANS. 


131 


sentative,  de  facto  as  well  as  de  jure.  He  is 
the  root  of  humanity  and  his  fall  affected  the 
stock  and  every  branch,  by  the  inherent  law 
of  organic  life  union.  .  .  .  The  human  race 
is  not  a  sand  heap,  but  an  organic  unity  ;  and 
only  on  the  ground  of  such  a  vital  unity,  as 
distinct  from  a  mechanical  or  merely  federal 
unity,  C!in  we  understand  and  defend  the  doc- 
trine of  original  sin,  the  imputation  of  Adam's 
sin,  and  of  Christ's  righteousness."  The  elder 
Edwards,  who  could  not  think  of  any  con- 
demnation without  personal  ill-desert,  carried 
the  notion  of  our  personal  identity  with  Adam 
so  far  as  to  say  that  his  sin  was  "truly  and 
properly  "  ours,  and  therefore  God  imputes  it 
to  us.  If,  however,  we  as  individuals  actually 
sinned  in  Adam,  there  would  be  no  need  of 
imputing  his  sin  to  us,  since  we  should  have 
sin  of  our  own  to  answer  for.  Dr.  Schaff,  it 
will  be  seen,  adopts  the  realistic  Augustinian 
imputation  theory  which  finds  perhaps  its' 
truest  expression  in  the  familiar  couplet  of  the 
old  New  England  Primer: 

In  Adam's  fall, 
We  sinned  all. 

And  this,  indeed,  is  the  view  of  many  of  the 


more  distinguished  modern  commentators,  as 
Olshausen,  Meyer,  Piiiiippi,  Godet,  Bishop 
Wordsworth,  the  "Speaker's  Commentary," 
Ellicott's  "New  Testament  Commentary," 
etc.  This  view  well  accords  with  the  tenses  of 
the  verbs:  "All  sinned,"  and  "death  passed 
through  upon  all  men  "—that  is,  at  a  definite 
time  in  the  past,  and,  as  we  think,  harmonizes 
with  the  drift  of  tlie  apostle's  argument,  and 
best  explains  the  universal  natural  depravity 
of  mankind.i  But  how  can  Dr.  Schaff,  with 
others  holding  similar  views,  say  that  this 
verb  to  sin  "means  real,  actual  sinning," 
and  yet  add  that  "all  men  sinned  inAdam,no< 
indeed  personally  by  conscious,  actual  trans- 
gressions, but  virtually  or  potentially"  '>. 
Volumes,  perhaps,  have  been  written  on  these 
two  words :  all  sinned  (n-oi-Tes  rfy^aprov) ,^  espe- 
cially on  how  this  'all  sinned'  is  connected 
with  the  phrase  '•  the  one  that  sinned'  {ivh<: 
a.iJ.apTri<TavTo^) ,  and  volumes  more  we  fear  will 
have  to  be  written  before  that  definition  will 
be  found  which  will  to  all  persons  and  in  all 
respects  be  satisfactory.  The  truth  is,  as  Prof. 
Boise  remarks,  the  hour  oi  this  matter  "is  not 
discussed  by  the  apostle."  One  thing,  how- 
ever, seems  to  be  certain,  namely,  that  the 


1  Prof.  Stuart  does  not  see  anything  which  specially 
needs  to  be  accounted  for  in  the  fact  that  all  the  de- 
scendants of  Adam  sin  since  he  himself  sinned  who 
was  created  ui)right.  He  says,  for  substance,  that  as, 
according  to  Edwards,  our  race  had  a  more  favorable 
probation  in  Adam  than  we  should  have  in  propria  per- 
sona, and  yet  he  fell,  it  is  therefore  nothing  wonderful 
that  all  his  descendants  fall,  even  though  created  up- 
right and  pure.  But  this,  1  think,  does  not  follow.  A 
strong  man  has  an  advantage  in  his  strength,  yet  we 
conceive  it  possible  that  he  might  fall  where  a  weaker 
man  might  stand.  That  a  strong  man  fell  simply  shows 
that  all  others  may  fall,  but  does  not  prove  that  they 
certainly  will.  Edwards  says  that  " an  effect's  happen- 
ing once  will  not  prove  any  fixed  propensity  or  perma- 
nent influence."  On  the  other  hand,  "a  stated  effect 
requires  a  stated  cause,"  and  in  support  of  this  postu- 
late he  adduces  this  illustration  among  others:  "If 
such  a  case  should  happen  that  a  person  through  the 
deceitful  persuasions  of  a  pretended  friend,  once  takes 
an  unwholesome  and  poisonous  draught  of  a  liquor  he 
had  no  inclination  to  before;  but  after  he  has  once 
taken  of  it,  he  be  observed  to  aot  as  one  that  has  an 
insatiable,  incurable  thirst  after  more  of  the  same"—  I 
so  that  he  does  and  will  indulge  incessantly  in  the 
practice  of  drinking  — "  could  it  be  said  with  good 
reason  that  a  fixed  propensity  can  no  more  be  argued  ' 
from  his  consequent  common  practice  than  from  his 
first  draught?"    And  he  thinks  it  \\ould  be  "weak' 


arguing  "  in  an  objector  to  say,  "  Do  you  tell  me  how  it 
came  to  pass  that  he  was  guilty  of  that  sin  the  first 
time,  without  a  fixed  inclination,  and  I  will  tell  you 
how  he  is  guilty  of  it  so  generally  without  a  fixed  incli- 
nation." One  thing  is  certain,  that  theologians  of 
every  age  and  of  every  school,  save  the  Pelagian  and 
Socinian,  have  traced  man's  innate  depravity  to  the  sin 
of  our  first  parents.  "  Whosoever,"  says  Augustine, 
"contends  that  human  nature  in  any  age  does  not  need 
the  second  Adam  as  a  physician  on  the  ground  that  it 
has  not  been  vitiated  in  the  first  Adam,  does  not  fall 
into  an  error  which  may  be  held  without  injury  to  the 
rule  of  faith,  but  by  that  very  rule  by  which  we  are 
constituted  Christians  is  convicted  of  being  an  enemy 
to  the  grace  of  God."— (F.) 

2  The  "  Five  Clergymen  "  render  this  verb:  were  sin- 
ners, since  this  phrase  "covers  every  sort  of  sin."  Prol. 
J.  R.  Boise,  in  his  notes  on  Romans,  seems  inclined  to 
regard  all  the  verbs  of  this  verse  as  in  the  gnomic  or 
iterative  aorist,  expressing  as  in  the  present  tense  a 
general  truth  or  what  is  habitual.  But  the  account 
here  given  of  Adam,  of  his  offense,  and  of  its  chiefest 
consequence,  is  manifestly  historic,  and  it  involves  here 
a  manifest  incongruity  to  say:  Through  Adam  sin 
enters  into  the  world,  etc.  Besides,  the  use  of  this  aorist 
in  the  New  Testament  is  quite  uncertain,  and  though 
affirmed  by  Buttraann,  p.  201,  is  altogether  denied  by 
Winer,  p.  277.— (F.) 


132 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  V. 


apostle's  argument  requires  us  to  keep  two 
personages  especially  in  view,  who  did  not 
stand  alone  or  act  as  private  persons,  but,  as 
Melanctlion  states  it,  "merited"  for  others, 
yet  "contrary  things,"  and  that  as  justifica- 
tion and  salvation  are  conferred  upon  us  on 
the  ground  of  the  obedience  and  righteous- 
ness of  the  second  Adam,  so  condemnation 
and  death  have  been  visited  upon  us,  upon 
our  whole  race,  on  the  ground  of  the  trans- 
gression of  the  first  Adam.  The  apostle  does 
not  assert  that  Adam's  transgression  is  the 
sole  cause  of  the  sinner's  condemnation,  nor 
does  he  ignore  individual  sins.  He  aflSrms 
that  before  the  law  was  given  "sin  was  in  the 
world,"  and  he  speaks  of  our  "many  offences," 
and  in  a  previous  chapter  declares  that  "they 
who  sinned  without  law  shall  perish  without 
law."  Yet  he  does  teach  that  the  sin  of  Adam 
is  the  primal  and  direct  cause  of  human  de- 
pravity, sin,  and  death,  and  that  in  this  respect 
he  is  a  type  of  the  last  Adam  from  whom 
come  directly  our  justification,  life,  and  iieaoe. 
"By  one  man  (see  especially  in  ver.  15,  17, 
the  simple  dative  of  means  )  sin  entered  and 
death  by  sin."  "The  judgment  came  of  one 
unto  condemnation."  "Through  one  tres- 
pass it  came  unto  all  men  to  condemnation," 
which  is  here  the  same  as  saying  that  all  men 
were  condemned  through  the  one  trespass  of 
Adam.  Compare  ver.  16,  "  the  judgment  was 
from  one  [one  offense'],  unto  condemnation." 
If  we  deny  that  this  "one  offence"  is  to  us 
the  ground  of  condemnation,  we  must  also 
deny  that  Christ's  righteousness  is  the  ground 
of  our  justification.  To  assert  that  individual 
sins  are  the  sole  cause  of  man's  condemnation 
and  doath  would  completely  nullify  the  apos- 
tle's argument,  and  would  be  as  false  to  Scrip- 
ture as  it  to  fact.  Of  what  actual  sins  are 
irresponsible  persons,  infants,  and  children 
unborn,  personally  guilty  that  they  should 
suffer  the  penalty  of  deatlr?  Their  only  sin 
for  which  they  die — for  there  is  no  death  with- 
out sin — is  the  imputed  sin  of  Adam,  unless 
it  be,  as  some  suppose  (Origen,  in  olden 
times,  Julius  Miiller,  President  Beecher), 
their  individual  sin  in  a  previous  state.  That 
the  apostle  should  ignore  the  fact  that  this 
very  large  part  of  our  race  suffer  death  is  an 
impossibility,  for  he  assorts  that  death  through 
sm  has  passed  through  upon  all  men,  and  he 
expressly  traces  the  death  of  all  to  the  sin  of 


all,  and  hence  this  large  class  of  dying  per- 
sons must  be  put  among  the  "all  "  who  sinned. 
Nor  will  it  do  to  interpret  'for  that'  as  mean- 
ing in  so  far  as,  unless  it  be  to  express  per- 
haps "  different  degrees  of  guilt  and  death  " 
(Lange),  because  there  must  be  a  sin  of  all 
which  is  the  cause  of  death  to  all.  The 
apostle's  argument,  then,  and  we  deem  it  irre- 
futable, is  manifestly  this:  that  there  is  a 
resemblance  between  the  headshi])  of  Adam 
and  of  Christ,  and  that  as  by  the  trespass  or 
transgression  of  Adam  all  men,  even  apart 
from  their  individual  sins,  are  condemned  and 
visited  with  death,  so  by  the  obedience  of 
Christ,  the  second  Adam,  all  who  receive  his 
grace  are  freely  justified  and  crowned  with 
everlasting  blessedness  apart  from  any  inher- 
ent goodness  or  merit  of  their  own.  In  the 
light  of  this  argument,  the  phrase  'for  that 
all  sinned'  must  be  interpreted.  In  2  Cor.  5: 
14,  an  "analogous  though  not  parallel  pass- 
age" (Godet),  Paul  asserts  that  because  "one 
(Christ)  died  in  behiilf  of  all  (or,  instead  of 
all)  thereftire  all  died."  In  like  manner  it 
may  at  least  be  said  that  as  Adam  sinned  for 
all,  to  the  disadvantage  and  condemnation  of 
all,  so  they  "all  sinned."  "The  death  of 
Christ  was  legally  and  effectively  our  death, 
and  the  sin  of  Adam  was  legally  $ind  eflect- 
ively  our  sin."  (Hodge.)  "The  apostle  there- 
fore represents  the  sin  of  mankind  as  object- 
ively wrapped  up  in  Adam,  precisely  as  he 
contemplates  the  righteousness  of  mankind  as 
objectively  wrapped  up  in  Christ."  (Philippi.) 
Forbes  wishes  to  find  in  this  phrase  an  impar- 
tation  as  well  as  an  imputation  of  sin,  and 
this  perhaps  can  be  done.  There  is  undenia- 
bly a  sense  in  which  we  as  a  rnce  fell  in  Adam 
(dowenotrightl^^  speakof  our  "fallen race"  ?), 
and  there  is  a  sense  in  which  we  as  a  race  sinyied 
in  and  through  Adam,  and  so  were  put  in  the 
category  of  sinners.  And  this,  wo  think,  is 
the  meaning  of  ver.  19,  where  Paul  asserts 
that  tlirough  the  disobedience  of  one  man,  in 
which  we  all  shared  as  a  race,  the  many — 
that  is,  the  whole  race  of  mankind  were  con- 
stituted, set  down  in  the  place  of,  sinners,  and 
are  consequently  treated  as  sinners.  01s- 
hausen,  speaking  of  our  being  constituted 
sinners  through  Adam's  offense,  says:  "Not 
the  per-onal  transgressions  of  individual  men, 
but  the  disobedience  of  Adam  was  alone  the 
foundation  of  all  being  sinners,  and  just  so  the 


Ch  v.] 


ROMANS. 


133 


reverse" — that  is,  in  regard  to  our  justifica- 
tion, solely  through  the  obedience  of  Christ. 
He  then  adds:  "No  expression  can  be  im- 
agined by  which  Paul  could  have  more  dis- 
tinctly defined  ver.  12  and  15,  and  protected 
his  meaning  from  erroneous  conceptions  ;  if, 
notwithstanding,  he  has  not  succeeded  in 
preventing  them,  the  cause  of  the  failure  can 
only  at  lust  be  found  in  the  heart's  resistance 
to  this  doctrine,  bringing,  as  it  does,  to  nothing 
all  man's  self-sufficiency,  a  resistance  which 
even  unconsciously  asserts  itself  while  inter- 
preting such  passages."] 

We  must  always  bear  in  mind  that  death 
means  more  than  the  mere  separation  of  soul 
and  body,  but  that  all  which  it  means  is  so 
connected  with  this  literal  sense,  that  this  last 
may  be  taken  as  a  representative  fact :  where 
this  is  found,  the  rest  will  follow,  without 
some  extraordinary  and  superhuman  inter- 
vention. Natural  death  is  a  part  of  the  pen- 
alty;  and  so  far  the  penalty  goes  into  actual 
effect. 

"The  death  of  the  soul,"  says  Augustine, 
"  takes  place  when  God  leaves  it,  as  the  death 
of  the  body  takes  place  when  the  soul  leaves 
it:  it  is  then  the  death  of  both,  that  is,  of  the 
whole  man,  when  a  soul  forsaken  of  God  for- 
sakes the  body."  ( "  De  Civitate  Dei,"  xiii,  c. 
1. )  "  Mors  igitur  animae  tit,  cum  eam  deserit 
Deus :  sicut  corporis,  cum  id  deserit  anima. 
Ergo  utriusque  rei,  id  est,  totius  hominis  mors 
est,  cum  anima  a  Deo  deserta  deserit  corpus." 

Bengel  calls  attention  to  the  arrangement  of 
the  four  clauses  in  this  verse: 

Sin  entered  into  the  world, 
And  death  through  sin  ; 
Death  passed  through  to  all  men, 
For  that  all  sinned  ; 

and  adds  this  remark:  "Sin  precedes  death; 
but  the  universality  of  death  is  known  before 
the  universality  of  sin  :  and  the  clauses  are 
conformed  to  this  order." 

There  is  still  one  more  point  to  be  considered 
in  this  verse,  before  we  pass  to  the  next. 
Looking  at  the  verse  as  a  whole,  it  is  evi- 
dently grammatically  incomplete.  Three 
ways  are  proposed  of  supplying  what  is  neces- 
sary to  its  completeness. 

(a)  To  supply  at  the  beginning,  or,  rather, 
after'  wherefore'  {therefore)  "it  was"— [that 
is,  our  justification  was  by  one  rnan,  as  through 


one  man  came  our  sin  and  condemnation], 
thus  making  all  that  follows  the  .second  mem- 
ber of  the  comparison,  technically  called  the 
apodosis,  instead  of  the  first,  the  protasis. 
Alford  takes  this  view,  and  refers  to  Matt.  25: 
14,  for  a  similar  use  of  the  word  translated  as, 
without  any  preceding  protasis.  [The  there- 
fore, at  the  beginning  of  our  passage,  indicat- 
ing a  new  starting  point,  forbids  such  a  close 
grammatical  connection  with  the  i)receding 
passage.] 

(b)  Others  regard  this  as  the  protasis,  and 
find  the  uj^odosis  in  a  later  clause  of  the  same 
verse,  some  in  the  clause  immediately  follow- 
ing, so  being  supplied,  and  being  changed 
to  also :  as  by  one  man  sin  entered  into  the 
world,  so  also  death  by  sin;  and  some  in  the 
next  clause,  and.  so  being  changed  to  .so  also. 

(c)  Others  find  the  apodosis  in  a  subsequent 
verse;    some   in   the  expression,    who  is  the 

Jigure  of  him  that  loas  to  come  in  ver.  14;  and 
some  in  the  latter  half  of  ver.  18,  even  so,  etc. 

All  these  except  the  last  would  be  gram- 
matically irregular,  the  last  under  (6)  pre- 
eminently so.  We  prefer  the  last  under  (c). 
Had  the  comparison  been  completed,  in  regu- 
lar form  with  its  proper  connection  [Winer, 
569]  and  without  any  parenthesis  or  digres- 
sion, we  suppose  ver.  12  would  have  read  on 
this  wise  :  therefore,  as  by  one  man  sin  entered, 
etc.,  even  so  by  one  man  righteousness  entered 
into  the  v)orld,  and  life  by  righteousness.  And 
this  is  virtually  the  way  in  which  it  is  com- 
pleted in  ver.  18,  the  terms  being  somewhat 
changed,  to  accord  with  the  interposed  verses. 
To  this  view  the  principal  objections  are,  that 
the  matter  contained  in  ver.  13-17  is  too  long 
and  too  important  to  be  treated  as  a  parenthe- 
sis :  and  also  that  ver.  18  seems  to  be  a  reca- 
pitulation rather  than  a  resumption.  Neither 
of  these  objections  seems  insuperjtble:  in  fact, 
the  last  seems  of  very  little  weight;  for  it 
would  be  quite  natural,  in  recapitulating  to 
resume  the  regular  grammatical  or  rhetorical 
form  of  the  sentence.  It  is  confessedly  a  case 
of  peculiar  difficulty  ;  but  this  way  of  mak- 
ing out  the  connection  seems  to  us  to  be  en- 
cumbered with  less  serious  difficulties  than 
any  other. 

13,  14.  It  is  generally  agreed  that  these 
verses  are  designed  to  prove  [or  explain]  the 
statement  of  ver.  12,  that  death  passed  upon 
all  men  on  account  of  sin.   What  is  the  nature 


134 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  V 


13  (For  until  the  law  sin  was  in  the  world  :  but  sin  is 
not  imputed  when  there  is  no  law. 


13  passed  unto  all  men,  for  that  all  sinned:— for  until 
the  law  sin  was  in  the  world:  but  sin  is  not  imputed 

14  when  there  is  no  law.    Nevertheless  death  reigned 


of  the  proof?  The  infliction  of  penal  evils 
implies  the  violation  of  law.  The  violation 
of  the  law  of  Moses  will  not  account  for  the 
universality  of  death,  fur  men  died  before 
that  law  was  given.  The  violation  of  the  law 
of  nature  will  not  account  for  the  universality 
of  death,  for  those  die  who  have  never  vio- 
lated that  law.  Death  is  more  extensive  than 
the  violation  of  the  law  of  Moses;  it  is  more 
extensive  than  the  violation  of  the  law  of 
nature.  It  is  co-extensive  with  our  connec- 
tion with  Adam.  Here  is  a  universal  eifect. 
Here  are  three  causes  proposed  to  account  for 
that  effect :  Two  of  these  causes  are  less  exten- 
sive than  the  effect,  the  third  is  precisely  co- 
extensive with  the  effect,  and  the  effect  is 
precisely  what  was  foretold  as  the  sure  conse- 
quence of  that  particular  cause.  It  follows, 
therefore,  that  men  are  subject  to  death  on 
account  of  the  sin  of  Adam.  ' 

For  until  the  law.  For  prior  to  the  law, 
and  up  to  the  time  of  the  law.  [This  is  further 
explained  by  the  phrase — from  Adam  to 
Moses.  The  word  law  in  the  original  has  no 
article,  yet  it  must  have  special  reference  to 
the  law.  The  Jews  knew  only  of  one  law, 
that  of  Moses,  and  hence  "law"  to  them  was 
the  same  as  "the  law."  So  "world"  in  the 
following  clause  is  destitute  of  the  article,  it 
being  noticed  bj'  "Winer  under  the  general 
head  of  "  words  which  denote  objects,  of 
which  there  is  but  one  in  existence,  and 
which,  therefore,  approximate  closely  to 
proper  names."  Especially  are  such  words 
found  without  the  article  "when,  in  connec- 
tion with  prepositions,  etc.,  they  form  phrases 
of  frequent  occurrence."]  Sin  was  in  the 
world.  [Continuously.  The  imperfect  tense 
is  used  to  express  simultaneity,  duration,  non- 
completion.  (Ellicott. )]  There  was  sin  in 
the  world.  This  is  proved  by  the  fact  that 
death,  the  consequence  of  sin,  was  all  this 
time  in  the  world.  But  sin  is  not  imputed 
when  there  is  no  laAV.  Sin  is  not  reckoned 
as  sin  when  there  is  no  law.  [It  is  not  reck- 
oned for  punishment,  or  is  not  punished  as 
transgression.  (Meyer.)]  The  word  trans- 
lated imputed  here  is  different  in  form  (though 
the  difference  is  not  radical,  both  being  de- 
rived from  the  same  root)  from  that  which  is 


usually  so  translated.  The  same  form  is  not 
found  elsewhere,  except  in  Philem.  (ver.  is.) 
Some  have  inferred  from  this  that  the  word 
here  used  means,  is  not  fully  or  stTictly  reck- 
oned, in  the  absence  of  express  law.  But  this 
requires  that  the  word  law  should  be  restricted 
to  express  or  luritten  law,  a  restriction  not 
called  for,  and,  in  our  view,  not  consistent 
with  a  right  view  of  the  apostle's  argument. 
["Not  put  into  the  account  for  punishment" 
is  Dr.  Shedd's  view.  But  surely  the  apostle 
has  repeatedly  and  plainly  asserted  that  the 
wrath  of  God  will  be  visited  upon  the  Gen- 
tiles, who  have  not  the  law,  but  who  yet  are 
fully  aware  that  for  their  sins  they  are  deserv- 
ing of  death.  Paul  in  the  last  chapter  (ver.  is) 
affirmed  that  "where  there  is  no  law  neither 
is  there  transgression."  And  his  meaning  in 
our  passage  must  be  that  sin,  in  the  absence 
of  God's  revealed  will,  is  not  reckoned  or 
punished  as  transgression.  It  may  be,  as  the 
Apostle  John  calls  it,  'lawlessness'  {avofiia.), 
but  not  'a  transgression  of  law'  (Trapo/Sao-w 
voixov).  Yet  death  reigned  from  Adam  to 
Moses,  and  if  death  was  visited  upon  the 
people  who  lived  during  that  time  solely  on 
account  of  their  individual  offenses,  then  their 
sin  certainly  was  imputed  to  them.  To  get 
rid  of  this  contradiction,  Tholuck,  Miillor, 
Stuart,  and  others  say  that  sin  is  not  imputed 
by  ynen  where  there  is  no  law,  and  the  idea 
then  would  be — though  men  in  a  state  of  na- 
ture, and  in  the  absence  of  law,  "make  but 
little  account  of  sin"  (Stuart),  yet  in  God's 
sight  they  do  sin,  and  their  sin,  as  such,  is 
visited  with  death.  But  against  this  man- 
imputation  view  of  sin,  I  would  observe  (a) 
that  in  the  Scriptures,  generally,  God,  and  not 
man,  is  the  one  who  imputes  or  does  not  im- 
pute sin ;  (6)  that  even  Pagans,  without  any 
revelation,  have  recognized  themselves  as  sin- 
ners (compare  1 :  32;  2  :  15),  and  the  Jews,  as 
we  know,  regarded  the  heathen  Gentiles  as 
pre-eminent  sinners;  and  (c)  that  sinning 
men  "make  but  little  account"  of  sin  whether 
committed  before  or  after  Moses,  whether 
without  law  or  with  law.  A  better  interpre- 
tation, and  one  quite  as  helpful  to  their  view, 
would  be  something  like  this:  Since  prior  to 
the  time  of  Moses  sin  was  in  the  world  and 


Ch.  v.] 


ROMANS. 


135 


14  Nevertheless  death  reigned  from  Adam  to  Moses, 
eveu  over  them  that  had  uot  sinned  after  the  simili- 
tude of  Adam's  trausgressiou,  who  i«  the  figure  of  him 
that  was  to  come. 


from  Adam  unto  Moses,  even  over  them  that  had 

not  sinned  after  the  likeness  of  Adam's  transgres- 

15  sion,  who  is  a  tigure  of  him  that  was  to  come.    But 


death  reigned  during  all  that  period,  therefore 
though   men  were  then  destitute  of  the  re- 
vealed will  or  law  of  God   they  yet  sinned 
against  some  law,  the  law  written   in  their 
hearts,  for  sin  is  not  imputed  and  visited  with 
death  in  the  absence  of  all  law.     This  view, 
which  is  adopted  for  substance  by  many  in- 
tcrpretiTs,  has  some  truth  in  it,  but  it  makes 
a  distinction,  not  apparent   in   the   text,  be- 
tween the  faiv  (vofiov)  of  one  line  and  the  equi- 
pollent law  of  the  litie  following.     Both  mean 
the  same  thing  and  are  to  be  treated  alike; 
and  hence  we  are  not  to  supply  and  empha- 
size an  adjective,  as  we  did  above,  before  the 
second  law.     Not  even  the  word  no,  which  is 
inserted  in  our  versions,  is  found  in  the  origi- 
nal text.     Supplying,  as  we  may,  the  article 
to  each  law,  we  have  this  literal  rendering: 
For  until  the  law  sin  was  in  the  world,  but  sin 
is  not  taken  into  account,  there  not  being  the 
laiv,  or,  where  the  lav)  is  7iot;  and  this  mani- 
festly correct  rendering  is  wholl3'  antagonistic 
to    the    above    view.     This  view,  moreover, 
neglects  the  strong  adversative  force  of  the 
Greek   conjunction    (oAAo,    but,  or,    neverthe- 
less, death  reigned,    etc.),    and   does  not  ac- 
cord with  the  drift,  as  we  ai)prehend  it,  of  the 
apostle's    argument.]     Nevertheless    death 
reigned  from  Adam  to  Moses.     'Never- 
theless'— that  is,  although  sin  is  not  imputed 
when  there  is  no  law,  yet  the  fact  was  that 
'death  reigned,'  was  not  only  in  the  world, 
but  exercised  a  dominion  which  none  could 
resist,  and   from  which   none  were  exempt. 
[Nevertheless  or  but   "introduces  an    appa- 
rently contradictory  phenomenon,  confront- 
ing the  sin  is  not  imputed,  etc.  ;  one,  however, 
which  just  proves  that  men  have  died,  not 
through  their  own  special  sin,  but  through 
the   sin   of   Adam,  which   was   put  to  their 
account."     (Meyer.)     Death   reigned  in  the 
world   during  a  period  when   there  was  no 
law,  which  expressly  threatened  death  as  the 
penalty  of  transgression.]     'From  Adam  to 
Moses,'  corresponding   to  the  expression   at 
the  beginning  of  the  verse — until  the  law — 
from  Adam,  the  first  transgressor,  to  Moses, 
the  first  lawgiver.     Even   over  them   that 
had  not  sinned  after  the   similitude  of 
Adam's    transgression.    Does   this    mean 


"even  over  those  who  did  not  commit  actual 
transgression,  as  Adam  did?"  or,  "even  over 
those  who  did  not  violate  an  express  precept, 
as  Adam  did?"     If  the  latter,  it  was  equally 
true  of  all  those  who  lived  between  Adam  and 
Moses;   if  the  former,  it  was  true  only  of  a 
part,  a  certain  class,  of  those  who  lived  be- 
tween Adam  and  Moses— that  is,  of  those  who 
died  in  infancy.     [Meyer,  Lange,  and  Hodge 
think   that  two  classes    are    here  indicated, 
though  the  former  two  find  here  no  reference 
made    to    infants.     But    most  commentators 
recognize  but  one  cla.ss  and  find  no  intended 
reference  to  infants.     "Ciiildren  are  included, 
but  not  specially  intended."    (SchafF. )]     Now 
the  form  of  the  expression  intimates  that  the 
words   following  'even'  designate  a  certain 
2^nrt  of  those  who  lived  between  Adam  and 
Moses,  over  whom  it  might  less  have  been 
expected  that  death  would   reign,  than  over 
the   rest.     What  class  ibould   this  be  except 
those  infants  over  whom  death  reigned?     But 
it  may  be  objected  that  if  infants  are  intended, 
there  is  no  reason  for  the  limitation  'from 
Adam  to  Moses,'  inasmuch  as  death's  reign 
over  infants  was  in  nowise  aft'ected  by  the  giv- 
ing of  the  law.  We  answer,  that  limitation  was 
not  made  in  direct  connection  with  the  refer- 
ence to  infants.     It  was  the  writer's  immediate 
purpo.se  to  show  that  death  was  not  the  con- 
sequence of  the  violation  of  the  law  of  Moses. 
The  proof  of  this  was,  that  death  reigned  be- 
fore the  law  of  Moses  was  given,  and  having 
made  that   necessary  limitation   here — when 
he  adds,  incidentally,  'even  over  them,'  etc. 
— he  did  not  think  it  necessary-  expressly  to 
remove  that  limitation  ;  it  was  no  longer  neces- 
sary, to  be  sure.     The  statement  was  equally 
true  of  infants  without  that  limitation;   but 
the  argument  is  not  vitiated  by  allowing  that 
no    longer    necessary   limitation    to  remain. 
Besides,  as   Meyer    has    observed,  the   word 
'even'  necessarily  assumes  a  class  of  sinners 
before  Moses,  whose  sin  was  after  the  simili- 
tude of  Adam's  transgression,"  and  this  ex- 
cludes the  idea  that  the  distinction  emphasized 
by  eve7i  is  between  those  who  had  violated  a 
specific   command   and   those   who   had   not. 
Moreover,  this  distinction  is  much  less  import- 
ant than  that  between  those  who  have  com- 


136 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  V. 


mitted  actual  sin  and  those  who  have  not,  and 
therefore  it  is  highly  improbable  that  the 
former  distinction  would  be  emphasized  and 
the  latter  altogether  ignored.  Finally,  it 
seems  to  us  simply  incredible  that  in  such  a 
discussion  as  this  so  prominent  and  significant 
a  factor  as  the  death  of  infants  should  be  un- 
noticed. Our  principal  reason  for  laying  so 
much  stress  on  this  particular  question  is  that 
the  reference  to  infants  is  denied  by  so  many 
commentators  of  note.  [Notwithstanding  Dr. 
Arnold's  exceedingly  able  argument  in  de- 
fense of  a  reference  to  infants  in  this  verse 
(see  Appendix  B),  we  are  still  inclined  to 
hesitate,  and,  on  the  whole,  are  disposed  to 
adopt  Meyer's  interpretation  of  these  difBcult 
verses.  (i3,  u.)  His  view,  with  which  that  of 
Philippi  and  Godet  is  substantially  accordant, 
is:  "If  the  death  of  men  after  Adam  had 
been  caused  by  their  own  sin,  then  in  the 
case  of  all  those  who  died  during  the  period 
from  Adam  till  the  law,  the  sin  which  they 
committed  must  have  been  already  reckoned 
to  them  as  transgression  of  the  law,  just  as 
Adam's  sin  was  the  transgression  of  the  posi- 
tive divine  command,  and  as  such  brought 
upon  him  death.  But  this  is  inconceivable, 
because  the  law  was  not  then  in  existence.'' 
It  was,  therefore,  on  account  of  the  Adamic 
transgression  that  death  reigned  from  Adam 
to  Moses,  not  only  over  those  individuals,  like 
Noah,  to  whom  special  commands  were  given, 
but  even  over  those  who  sinned  only  against 
the  law  written  in  their  hearts — that  is,  those 
who  did  not  sin  after  the  likeness  of  Adam's 
transgression.  Philippi,  Gifford,  Turner,  Go- 
det differ  from  Meyer's  interpretation  chiefly 
in  this,  that  they  think  the  apostle  here  refers 
only  to  one  class,  the  whole  human  species 
living  and  dying  between  Adam  and  Moses. 
Edwards,  Hodge,  Shedd,  and  some  other  ini- 
putationists,  with  Dr.  Arnold,  make  this  latter 
clause  refer  to  infants;  but  this  seems  unten- 
able for  several  reasons:  {a)  We  naturally 
infer  that  those  who  did  not  sin  after  the  like- 
ness of  Adam's  transgression  did  actually  sin 
some  other  way.  (6)  If  infants  literally  sinned 
in  Adam,  then  we  should  naturally  suppose 
that  their  transgression  was  just  like  Adam's. 
And  this  is  what  Prof.  Shedd,  by  an  almost 
unexampled  subtlety  of  hypercriticism,  de- 
duces from  this  clause.  These  persons,  he 
says,  did    not    commit  a  sin   resembling  or 


similar  to  Adam's,  therefore  they  committed 
the  same  identical  sin !  (c)  There  is  no 
special  reason  for  referring  to  infants  who 
lived  in  the  period  from  Adam  to  Moses, 
since  these  were  no  more  ignorant  of  law  or 
innocent  of  personal  transgression  than  those 
living  at  any  other  period  of  the  world,  (d) 
If  the  apostle  had  wished  to  single  out  or 
except  a  certain  class  (infants),  he  would 
naturally  have  specified  them  by  name,  whicii 
he  could  Aasily  have  done,  and  would  not 
naturally  have  adopted  a  seemingly  very 
blind  method  of  doing  so.  (e)  Not  only  is 
this  class  not  mentioned  by  name,  but  no 
clear  intimation  is  given  that  this  class  is 
specially  had  in  view.  (/)  There  is  no  ce?*- 
tainty  that  the  apostle  intended  to  distinguish 
two  classes  of  persons  (as  adults  and  infants) 
existing  in  the  period  between  Adam  and 
Moses  over  whom  death  reigned,  (g)  Had 
he  wished  thus  sharply  to  distinguish  tliem, 
he  probably  would  have  said  something  like 
this:  Nevertheless,  death  reigned  from  Adam 
to  Moses,  not  only  over  adult  persons  who 
sinned  merely  against  the  light  of  nature,  but 
even  over  infants  and  unborn  children  who 
never  had  done  anything  either  good  or  bad. 
(A)  The  sinning  or  not  sinning  in  the  likeness 
of  Adam's  transgression  can  more  easily  be 
predicated  of  such  adult  persons  than  it  can 
of  irresponsible  infants.  Yet  we  do  not  think 
that  this  large  class  of  mankind  are  ignored 
in  the  apostle's  argument.  They  are,  in  our 
view,  embraced  in  the  propositions — ^^  death 
passed  through  upon  all  men,"  and  "for  that 
all  sinned."  As  dying  ones  they  cannot  here 
be  left  out  of  consideration,  for,  as  Meyer 
states  it,  "the  question  here  is  the  connection 
between  the  sin  of  all  and  the  dying  of  all."] 
Who  is  the  figure  of  him  that  was  to 
come.  [Literally,  a  type  of  the  coming  one, 
spcken  from  a  pre-Christian  point  of  view. 
Fritzsche,  De  Wette,  Alford,  make  this  refer 
to  Christ's  final  coming.]  'That  was  to  come,' 
or,  the  one  about  to  be — that  is,  the  Messiah. 
In  this  brief  clause,  the  analogy  between 
Adam  and  Christ,  which  is  the  key  of  this 
whole  section  (ver.  12-21),  is  first  explicitlj'  stated. 
[Meyer's  interpretation  of  ver.  13,  14  is  in 
substance  nearly  as  follows:  Since  in  the  ab- 
sence of  law  there  is  no  imputation  of  personal 
transgression,  therefore  the  death  which  befell 
those  who  did  not,  as  Adam,  sin  against  a 


i 


Ch.  v.] 


ROMANS. 


137 


15  But  not  as  the  oflfence,  so  also  is  the  free  gift :  for 
if  through  the  otf'ence  of  one  luany  be  dead,  much 
more  the  grace  of  God,  and  the  gift  by  grace,  which  is 
by  one  man,  Jesus  Christ,  hatli  abounded  uuto  many. 


not  as  the  trespass,  so  also  is  the  free  gift.  For  if  by 
the  trespass  of  the  one  ihe  many  died,  much  more 
did  the  grace  of  Uod,  and  the  gift  by  tlie  grace  of  the 
one    man,  Jesus   Christ,   abound    unto  the   many. 


positive  law  could  not  be  derived  from  their 
individual  .sin  committed  before  tlie  law  was 
given.  Consequently,  death  in  their  case  was 
cau>ed,  not  by  individual  sing,  but  by  the  sin 
of  Adam,  who  in  this  respect  is  a  type  of 
Christ;  for  as  the  sin  of  Adam,  and  not  their 
self-originated  sin,  brought  death  to  all,  so 
the  obedience  of  Christ,  and  not  their  own 
virtue,  brought  life  to  all.  This  view  does 
not  necessarily  imply  that  sinners  of  the  class 
referred  to  were  not  also  condemned  and 
punished  for  their  own  individual  sins.  Thus 
Bengel  says:  "It  is  not  denied  that  death  is 
the  wages  of  any  sin  whatever,  but  it  is  proved 
that  the  first  cause  of  death  was  the  first  sin."] 
The  following  verses  specify  the  differences, 
rather  than  the  resemblances,  between  the 
objects  compared.  The  resemblance  implied 
in  this  word  'figure'  (literally,  tyjje)  may  be 
summarily  stated  in  the  following  formula, 
■which,  however,  necessarily  involves  the  most 
important  points  of  diflTerence  :  As  Adam,  the 
first  man,  communicated  a  degenerate  human 
nature  to  all  his  natural  oflTspring,  so  Christ, 
the  new  man,  communicates  a  regenerate 
divine  nature  (2  Peter  i: 4)  to  all  his  spiritual 
offspring.  This  statement  is  still  further  ex- 
panded by  Carpzov,  so  as  to  embrace  the  sub- 
stance of  what  is  contained  in  ver.  12-19,  thus : 

1.  The  first  Adam  is  the  one  man,  the  head 
and  corrupter  of  the  human  race.  (ver.  12.) 
So  Christ,  the  last  Adam  (1  cor.  is:  45),  he  too 
is  the  one  man,  but  God-man,  the  restorer  of 
the  human  race.     (ver.  15,  n.) 

2.  The  first  Adam  brought  in  sin,  guilt, 
death.  (Ver.  12,  is.)  The  last  Adam  procures  the 
grace  of  God,  righteousness,  life.     (ver.  15-18.) 

3.  The  one,  by  his  transgression,  brought 
guilt  upon  all  men.  (ver.  15,  is,  19.)  The  other 
by  his  righteousness,  brings  back  reconcilia- 
tion to  all  who  by  faith  lay  hold  on  his  merit. 

(Ver.  17.) 


4.  The  first  Adam  sinned  unto  condemna- 
tion. (Ver.  16.)  The  last  Adam,  bj' his  right- 
eousness, brings  us  blessing  unto  life  eternal. 1 

(Ver.  18.) 

[Though  our  heritage  from  Adam  is  one  of 
woe,  yet  we  have  this  to  be  thankful  for,  that 
through  the  first  Adam  we  have  the  Second. 
"O  felix  culpa  quie  talem  et  tantum  meruit 
habere  Redemptorem."  "O  fortunate  offense 
which  deserved  to  have  such  and  so  great  a 
Redeemer.-'  "I  willingly  consent,"  says  Clial- 
niers,  "to  have  the  guilt  of  Adam  charged 
upon  me,  if,  along  with  it,  the  overpassing 
righteousness  of  Christ  shall  be  reckoned  to 
me."  (Ver.  15.)  The  connection  of  thought 
here  is  this:  Adam,  as  a  type,  indeed  resem- 
bles Christ,  but  there  is  this  difference,  etc. 
The  design  of  the  apostle  leads  him,  as  has 
been  intimated,  to  emphasize  the  differences 
rather  than  the  resemblances  between  the 
type  and  the  antitype.  Prof.  Boise  remarks 
that  the  logical  order  of  a  sentence  woul^ 
be  so  as,  but  Paul  pursues  the  chronological 
order,  mentioning  the  fall  first;  compare  ver. 
16.]  But  not  as  the  ofTeiicc,  so  also  is 
the  free  gift.  [Better:  the  gift  of  grace.'\ 
That  is,  not  in  all  respects.  What  follows  in 
this  verse  explains  this.  There  was  a  similar 
relation  of  cause  and  consequence  in  the  two 
cases ;  but  both  were  of  an  opposite  nature. 
'The  offence' — that  is,  the  act  of  tran.«gression, 
which  brought  in  death — ihe  fall,  as  the  same 
word  is  translated"in  11 :  11,  12.  [It  is  derived 
from  a  verb  which  means,  to  fall  aside.]  It  is 
commonly  translated  tresjyass  (wherever  that 
English  word  occurs  as  a  noun),  sometimes 

sill  (Eph.  1:  7;  2:  5:  Col.  2 :  13),  onCd,  favlt  (Gal.  B:  1); 

offense  only  in  the  last  verse  of  the  preceding 
chapter,  and  in  ver.  15  (twice),  16,  17,  18,  20, 
of  this.  '  The  free  gift.'  This  word  is  not  the 
direct  antithesis  to  offense  or  fall ;  but  having 
in  mind  chiefly  the  consequence  of  the  offense 


1  1.  Primus  Adamus  est  ille  eU  avOpionoi;,  ille  untis, 
generis  caput  humani  et  depravator.  (Ver.  12.)  Ita 
Christus  o  eo-xaro?  'ASa/n  (1  Cor.  15:  45),  et  ipse  est  unus 
ille,  sed  ©eavepwjros,  generis  humani  instaurator.  (Ver. 
15,  17.) 

2.  Prior  Adamus  peccatum,  reatum,  mortem  infert. 
(Ver.  12,  IS.)  Posterior  gratiam  Dei,  justiliam,  vitam 
comparat.    (Ver.  15,  18.) 


3.  Ille,  per  unum  delictum,  reatum  induoit  ad  omnes 
homines.  (Ver.  15,  18.  19.)  Hie,  i)er  unam  justitiam, 
reconciliationem  recuperat  omnium  hominum,  ejus 
lueritum  fide  complectentium.    (Ver.  17.) 

4.  Adamus  primus  peccat  ad  condemnationem.  (Ver. 
16.)  Adamus  novissimus  sua  nos  ju^itia  felicitat  ad 
vitam  eternani.    (Ver.  18.) 


188 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  V. 


— namely,  condemnation,  the  apostle  uses  the 
word  which  comprehensively  expresses  the 
proper  antithesis  to  that  consequence,  and 
which  is  explained  by  the  terms,  g)-acea.ndgift, 
with  their  adjuncts,  in  this  and  the  two  follow- 
ing verses.  For  if  through  the  offence  of 
[the]  one  many  be  dead.  The  many  died, 
rather  than  '  many  be  dead,'  is  the  exact 
translation  of  the  original.  The  meaning 
of  not  a  few  passages  is  obscured,  or  altered, 
by  the  frequent  mistranslation  of  the  verb  to 
die.  See  2  Cor.  5:  14,  where  the  verb  trans- 
lated "were  dead"  is  precisely  identical  with 
that  translated  "died"  in  the  same  verse, 
except  the  difference  of  one  letter,  to  mark 
the  change  from  the  singular  number  to  the 
plural. 1  See  also  Gal.  2:  21.  It  is  an  entirely 
different  expression  in  the  original  (veicpds), 
which  is  correctly  translated,  to  be  dead,  in 
such  pa.ssages  as  Luke  15:  24,  32;  Rom.  7:8; 
8:  10;  Eph.  2:  1,  5;  Col.  2:  13;  James  2:  17; 
Rev.  1:  18;  2:  8;  3:  1.  ["The  death  of 
the  many  is  described  here  as  the  direct  con- 
sequence of  the  trespass  of  the  one."  (Phi- 
lippi.)  Prof.  Stuart  also  concedes  that  "Adam 
did  by  his  offense  cause  death  to  come  on  all 
without  exception,"  that  "all  have  been  in- 
troduced to  sin  and  death  by  Adam,"  and 
that  "the  disobedience  of  Adam  was  a  cause 
or  ground  why  all  men  became  sinners  and 
therefore  come  into  a  state  of  condemnation." 
The  many  (used  here  in  contrast  with  the 
one) — that  is,  all  mankind  died  by  means  of 
Adam's  offense,  and  they  died  at  the  same 
time  that  death  passed  through  unto  all  men, 
and  that  was  the  time  of  Adam's  transgression, 
in  which  all  mankind  were  involved.  We 
became  in  Adam  a  fallen,  sinful,  djnng  race. 
"The  question,"  saj-s  Olshausen,  "how  in 
Adam  all  who  were  not  yet  in  existence  could 
sin  with  him  [or  how  all  could  die  in  him] 
has  difficult^'  in  it  only  so  long  as  the  isolation 
of  individuals  is  maintained."]  Much  more. 
[The  presupposition  on  which  this  conclusion 
rests  is  that  God  would  rather  allow  his  good- 
ness to  prevail,  than  his  severity.     (Meyer.)] 


This  phrase  is  to  be  understood  here  in  a  logi- 
cal, rather  than  in  a  quantitative  sense — vjith 
tnuch  m,ore  reason,  rather  than  in  a  much 
greater  degree.  The  difference  indicated  in 
the  first  clause  of  this  verse  seems  to  be  rather 
one  of  kind  than  of  degree  (Alford  takes 
the  contrary  view)  ;  yet  the  idea  of  degree 
cannot  be  altogether  excluded  from  the  '  much 
more'  in  any  of  these  three  verses  (15,  10, 17). 
It  seems,  however,  more  prominent  in  the 
next  verse  than  in  this.  Here  we  regard  the 
contrast  as  chiefly  between  the  kind,  or  fiature, 
of  the  consequences  of  the  acts  of  the  type 
(ver. u)  and  of  the  antitype:  on  the  one  hand, 
death,  on  the  other,  a  gracious  and  abounding 
gift.  ["The  word  abound  is  doubtless  an 
echo  of  Paul's  own  blessed  experience." 
(Meyer.)  A  simple  antithesis  of  the  first 
clause  would  be,  as  Philippi  observes:  much 
more  by  the  gracious  gift  of  the  One  shall  the 
many  live.  But  Paul  wishes  to  expand  and 
emphasize  the  idea  of  the  'gift'  (xapto-Mi)  and 
of  its  abounding  through  Jesus  Christ.  The 
grace  abounding,  says  Dr.  Gifford,  "did  not 
restore  in  the  same  form  that  which  had  been 
lost  in  Adam,  but  bestowed  far  more  in  new 
and  better  gifts."]  The  English  reader  might 
be  in  doubt,  whether  the  relative  'which' 
refers  to  the  word  'gift,'  or  to  the  word  'grace': 
the  question  would  be  only  a  grammatical 
one,  the  sense  being  substantially  the  same; 
but  it  is  perfectly  clear  in  the  original,  that 
the  reference  is  to  the  latter  word ;  and  the 
clause  might  be  translated,  both  more  liter- 
allj^  and  less  ambiguously,  the  gift  by  (or  in) 
the  grace  of  the  one  m.an.  [Bengel  calls  the 
two  articles  which  stand  after  'grace,'  nervo- 
sissimi,  "  most  forcible."  Their  force  perhaps 
can  be  fully  expressed  thus:  by  the  grace 
(namely)  by  that  of  the  one  man,  etc.  De 
Wette,  Eritzsche,  and  Meyer,  versus  Lange, 
Philippi,  Godet,  connect  this  clause,  not  with 
the  noun  gift,  but  with  the  verb  abound, 
which  seems  to  us  incorrect.  The  points  of 
contrast  in  this  verse  are — the  trespass  of  the 
one    (Adam)    with   its   result,  death,  as  our 


1  "  If  one  died  for  all  then  they  all  died  " — that  is,  they 
died  ill  Christ's  dying.  The  same  principle  holds  sub- 
stantially true  of  the  sinning  and  dying  of  the  first 
Adam.  These  acts  on  the  part  of  Adam  were  virtually 
the  acts  of  the  race.  Dr.  Gifford  (in  the  Bible  Com- 
mentary) says:  "The  apostle's  whole  reasoning  rests 
on  these  two  principles:  (1)  Sin  is  the  cause  of  death: 


(2)  By  virtue  of  the  unity  of  mankind,  sin  and  death 
are  both  transmitted  from  one  to  all.  Thus  the  sin  of 
the  many  and  the  death  of  the  many  are  included  in 
the  sin  of  the  one  and  the  death  of  the  one,  and  there 
at  their  common  source  the  connection  between  sin  and 
death  is  fixed  once  for  all." — (F.) 


Ch.  v.] 


ROMANS. 


139 


16  And  not  as  it  was  by  one  that  sinned,  so  is  the 
zift:  lor  the  judgment  v'as  hy  one  to  condemnation, 
out  the  free  gilt  is  of  many  otl'ences  unto  justiticatiou. 

17  For  if  by  cue  man's  ofl'ence  death  reigned  by  one ; 


16  And  not  as  through  one  that  sinned,  «o  is  the  gift :  for 
the  judgment  came  of  one  uiitocondemuation,  but  tlie 
free  gilt  canif.  of  many  trespasses  unto  ijustilii'ution. 

17  For  if,  by  the  trespjiss  of  tlie  one,  death  reigned 
through  the  one;  much  more  shall  they  that  re. 


1  6r.  an  act  of  righteoumen. 


heritage  of  woe  on  the  one  hand,  and  on  the 
other,  the  grace  of  God  and  the  gift  of  right- 
eousness (ver.  n)  abounding  to  us  through  the 
grace  of  the  one  man  Jesus  Christ,  who  loved 
us  and  gave  liiinself  to  be  the  propitiation  for 
our  sins.] 

Now  follows  mention  of  a  difference  in 
dejree:  the  evil  consequences  of  one  trespass 
come  upon  us  from  Adam  ;  but  the  evil  con- 
sequences of  many  tres2)asses  are  taken  away 
by  Christ. 

16.  And  not  as  it  Avas  by  one  that 
sinned.  [The  codices  D  E  F  6  and  the  Vul- 
gate read  'one  sin  '  in  stead  of 'one  that  sinned,' 
which  Mej'er  rejects  as  a  "gloss."  De  Wette 
and  Alford  fill  out  the  sentence  thus:  "not 
as  that  which  originated,  or  took  place, 
through  one,"  etc.  Meyer  does  not  supply 
anything.]  The  preposition  'by,'  occurring 
twice  in  this  verse,  represents  two  different 
prepositions  in  the  Greek,  the  second  of  which 
[«>c,  denoting  source  'out  of  which  some- 
thing issues]  is  the  same  that  is  translated  'of 
in  the  last  clause.  Hence  the  more  exact  rep- 
resentation of  the  original  would  be:  "And 
not  as  it  was  through  one  that  sinned,  so  is  the 
gift :  for  the  judgment  was  from  (or,  of)  one  to 
condemnation,  but  the  free  gift  is  from  (or,  of) 
man}- offences  unto  justification."  [Dr.  Hodge 
sa3's  that  "Judgment  unto  condemnation  is  a 
sentence  of  condemnation,  and  the  free  gift 
unto  justification  is  gratuitous  justification." 
Godot  prefers,  instead  of  '  many  offences,'  the 
rendering:  'offences  of  many,'  but  in  this  I 
think  he  stands  alone.]  After  the  second 
'one'  the  word  offense  should  be  supplied. 
This  is  plain  from  the  way  in  which  the  sen- 
tence is  completed.  [De  "Wette,  Meyer,  Phi- 
lipjii,  Godot,  Alford,  looking  backward  to 
'one  that  sinned,' rather  than  forward,  would 
supply,  properly  we  think,  the  word  man  or 
sinner  after  the  second  'one.'  Indeed,  Philippi 
and  others  regard  all  the  ones  in  this  whole 
section  as  masculine,  even  those  in  ver.  18. 
The  word  rendered  "justification"  (SiKaiiona) 
differs  from  the  word  occurring  in  ver.  18;  4: 
25,  which  has  this  special  meaning.  It  properly- 


denotes  a  righteous  or  justifying  act  or  a  justi- 
fying sentence,  "a  justifying  judgment." 
(Weiss.)  It  occurs  elsewhere  in  ver.  18 ;  1 : 
32;  2:  26;  8:  4;  Heb.  9:1;  Rev  15:  4; 
19:  8;  Luke  1 :  6.  Here  it  is  the  antithesis  of 
condemnation,  and  in  ver.  18  of  trespass.  Aris- 
totle defines  it  as  the  amendment  or  reparation 
of  an  unjust  act.  Dr.  Schafi*  makes  it  mean 
in  both  these  verses,  "Me  righteous  deed  — 
that  is,  the  perfect  obedience  of  Christ." 
Meyer  and  Godet  regard  it  as  a  sentence  of 
justification  in  both  places.  De  Wette  and 
Philippi  and  our  Revised  Version  give  it  dif- 
ferent senses  in  the  two  passages.  This  con- 
demnation and  justification,  as  we  see  from 
ver.  18,  embraces  "all  men."  The  second 
difference  here  indicated  between  the  influ- 
ence of  Adam  and  of  Christ  is  that  of  con- 
demnation and  justification.     (De  Wette.)] 

How  clearly  the  one  sin  of  Adam,  rather 
than  the  many  sins  that  originated  from  it,  is 
here  made  the  ground  of  condemnation.  The 
whole  contrast  turns  upon  that  point. 

The  next  verse  brings  to  view  a  third  diflTer- 
ence,  both  of  kind  and  degree:  we  had  no 
voluntary  part  in  the  sin  of  Adam ;  but 
voluntarily  receive  the  grace  of  Christ:  we 
might  well  expect,  therefore,  that  the  good 
which  comes  to  us  from  the  latter  should  out- 
weigh the  evil  which  comes  to  us  from  the 
former. 

17.  For  if  by  one  man's  offence  death 
rei§:ned  by  one.  [Each  of  the  ones  in  this 
verse  should  have  the  article  as  in  the  Revised 
Version.]  There  is  nothing  in  the  first  clause 
of  this  verse  which  needs  explanation  or  com- 
ment. It  simply  reafl^rms  the  causal  connec- 
tion between  the  sin  of  the  first  man  and  the 
reign  of  death  over  all  men.  The  abundance 
of  grace  corresponds  with  the  'grace  of  God' 
that  'abounded'  [and  'the  gift  of  righteous- 
ness' with  the  'gift  by  (Christ's)  grace']  of  ver. 
15.  Compare  also  Johii  10:  10.  [This  verse 
contrasts  chiefly  the  reigning  of  death  through 
Adam  and  the  reigning  of  life  through  Christ. 
Godet  thus  gives  the  scope  of  the  argument 
here  presented:    "For  this  terrible  reign  of 


140 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  V. 


mucli  more  they  which  receive  abundance  of  grace 
and  of  the  gift  of  righteousness  shall  reign  in  lile  by 
one,  Jesus  Christ.) 


ceive  the  abundance  of  grace  and  i  of  the  gift  of  right- 
eousness reign  iu  life  through  the  one,  even  Jesus 


1  SoiLie  aDcieDt  authorities  omit  vf  the  gift. 


death,  established  on  the  weak  foundation  of 
a  single  sin  and  a  single  sinner,  may  serve  as 
a  measure  to  establish  the  greater  certainty  of 
the  reign  of  life  which  will  come  to  light 
among  the  justified  by  the  freely  accepted 
gift  of  God."  On  the  verb  'reigned'  Bengel 
thus  remarks:  "The  word  in  the  preterite 
looks  back  from  the  economy  of  grace  to  that 
of  sin,  as  presently  '  shall  reign,'  in  the  future, 
looks  forwiird  from  the  economy  of  sin  to  that 
of  grace  and  eternal  life;  sover.  19."  Calvin 
in  noticing  the  difterence  of  these  two  reigns 
says:  "The  benefit  of  Christ  does  not  coine 
to  all  men,  while  Adam  has  involved  his 
whole  race  in  condemnation;  and  the  reason 
of  this  is  indeed  evident;  for  as  the  curse  we 
derive  from  Adam  is  conveyed  to  us  by  nature, 
it  is  no  wonder  that  it  includes  the  whole 
mass;  but  that  we  may  come  into  participa- 
tion of  the  grace  of  Christ,  we  must  be  in- 
grafted in  him  by  faith.  Hence,  in  order  to 
partake  of  the  miserable  inheritance  of  sin  it 
is  enough  for  thee  to  be  a  man,  for  it  dwells 
in  flesh  and  blood  ;  but  in  order  to  enjoy  the 
righteousness  of  Christ  it  is  necessary  for  thee 
to  be  a  believer,  for  a  participation  of  him  is 
attained  only  by  faith."  Of  all  the  fallen 
children  of  Adam,  it  is  only  they  which  re- 
ceive the  abundance  of  grace  that  shall 
reign  in  life.]  The  principal  question  in 
regard  to  the  complex  sentence  which  forms 
the  latter  part  of  this  verse  is,  which  are  the 
emphatic  clauses  ?  Is  the  emphasis  on  'they 
■which  receive,'  or  on  'shall  reign,'  or  on  'in 
life'  ?  There  is  no  apparent  reason  for  special 
emphasis  upon  the  word  'life'  :  it  is  required 
as  the  antithesis  of  the  word  'death'  in  the 
first  clause.  Nor  can  'shall  reign'  well  be 
made  more  emphatic  in  the  latter  part  of  the 
verse,  than  'reigned'  was  in  the  former  part. 
But  'they  which  receive'  introduces  a  new 
element.  The  position  of  the  word  in  the 
Greek  indicates  emphasis:  'they  which  re- 
ceive' is  expressed  by  the  article  and  the 
present  participle,  equivalent,  as  nearly  as  the 
idioms  of  the  two  languages  admit,  to  'those 
receiving'  [the  participle  denoting  a  con- 
tinued process.  (Alford.)];  while  the  words 
'abundance  of  grace  and  of  the  gift  of  right- 


eousness,' being  placed  between  the  article 
and  the  participle,  in  a  manner  peculiar  to 
the  Greek  language,  ihe  result,  apparently 
designed,  is  to  bring  the  participle  as  near  as 
possible  to  the  words,  'shall  reign  in  life.' 
Again,  the  use  of  the  present  participle,  in- 
stead of  the  past  'thej'  who  receive,'  instead 
of  ■  they  who  received,'  or  '  who  have  received,' 
by  inaking  the  participle  more  nearly  equiva- 
lent to  a  substardive,  as  if  he  had  said,  the 
receivers  of,  etc.  And  finally,  the  fact  that 
the  construction  of  the  sentence  is  changed, 
seemingly  in  order  to  bring  the  pai'ticiple  into 
this  prominence  confirms  our  view  of  its 
emphatii!  character :  for  the  comparison  which 
began  with  'by  one  man's  offence  death 
reigned'  would  naturally  and  regularly  have 
ended  'by  one  man's  grace  and  righteous- 
ness life  shall  reign,'  or  in  some  similar  way, 
if  the  apostle  had  not  had  a  special  reason  for 
making  the  personal  receivers  reign  in  life, 
instead  of  saying  life  shall  reign.  [De  Wette 
remarks  that  this  form  of  expression  was 
chosen  to  make  prominent  "the  idea  of  free 
personality."  On  the  distinction  between  life 
iitori),  whose  proper  antithesis  is  death,  and  the 
life  which  we  live  (/3ios) — that  is,  its  means  or 
manner,  see  Trench's  "Synonj'ms,"  p.  91. 
Meyer  says  the  words  Jesus  Christ  "are 
added  as  if  in  triumph,  in  contradistinction 
to  the  unnamed  but  well-known  one  who  occa- 
sioned the  reign  of  death.  Finally,  we  should 
not  fail  to  notice  how  in  this  passage  the  glance 
proceeds  from  the  state  of  grace  (receiving), 
backward  to  the  state  of  wrath  (reigned),  and 
forward  to  the  state  of  glory  (shall  reign)." 
Philippi  says:  "As  to  this  reigning  of  be- 
lievers in  eternal  life,  which  is  an  inheriting, 
a  being  glorified,  a  reigning  with  Christ, 
compare  8:  17;  1  Cor.  4:  8;  6:  2,  3;  2  Tim. 

2:  12;  Kev.  20:  4;  22:  5 Christ  atoned 

for  many  sins,  and  not  merely  abolished  death, 
but  planted  life  in  its  stead."  "Far  more," 
says  Chrysostom,  "than  what  we  owed  was 
paid  by  Christ,  as  much  more  as  the  immea- 
surable ocean  exceeds  a  drop.  Doubt  not, 
therefore,  O  man,  when  beholding  such  a 
treasure  of  blessings,  nor  ask  how  the  old 
spark   of  death   and   of  sin   has  been  extin- 


Ch.  V] 


ROMANS. 


141 


18  TliLTcfiire,  as  by  the  offence  of  one  jinhjiiienl  came 
upon  all  luen  lo  coudemualion;  even  so  by  the  right- 
eousness of  one  the  Jrte  yijt  came  upoa  all  men  unto 
justification  of  life. 


18  Christ.  So  iheu  as  through  one  trespass  the  judg- 
luKid  caiiifi  uuto  all  men  to  condeiunation ;  even  so 
through  one  act  of  righteousness  the  jitv  gift  came 

19  unto  all  men  to  justification  of  life.    For  as  through 


guishod,  seeing  that  such  a  sea  of  the  gift  of 
grace  has  been  poured  upon  it."] 

The  precise  relation  of  these  tliree  verses  to 
each  otlier  is,  however,  a  question  of  no  little 
difficniity,  in  regard  to  which  the  ablest  com- 
mentators are  by  no  means  agreed.  Alford 
makes  vor.  15  point  out  a  difference  of  degree, 
fixing  the  stress  upon  'much  more,'  taken 
quantitively ;  ver.  16,  a  difference  in  kind,  em- 
pliasizing  the  words  condemnation  and  right- 
eousness; and  ver,  17,  a  second  difference  in 
kind  between  'death'  and  'life.'  Lange 
says  ver.  16  compares  things,  ver.  17,  persons. 
Again,  some  regard  ver.  17  as  a  mere  amplifi- 
cation of  ver.  15,  the  words  'offence,'  'gift,' 
and  'grace'  being  prominent  in  both.  [The 
word  'gift'  is  wanting  in  B  49,  but  this  is  not 
sufficient  to  cast  any  serious  doubt  on  its 
genuineness.  Note  how  tliis  righteousness  of 
God  through  faith,  whereby  we  receive  the 
divine  acquittal,  is  called  a  'gift.'  Compare 
Phil.  8:9,  the  righteousness //-om  God  upon 
faith.] 

The  two  following  verses  are  a  condensed 
summary  of  the  results  of  the  parallel  between 
Adam  and  Christ;  but  here,  again,  we  meet 
with  different  explanations  of  the  relation  of 
the  two  to  each  other. 

18.  Therefore.  [Accordingly  then,  or,  so 
then  (hinc  igitur),  a  frequent  expression  with 
the  apostle,  and  placed  first  in  the  sentence 
contrary  to  cla.ssical  usage.  Some  critics 
state  that  the  first  word  {ipa.)  refers  rather 
to  the  internal  cause,  the  second  {olv)  more 
to  the  external.*  The  ones  of  this  verse, 
tliough  commonly  regarded  as  masculine,  are 
properly  neuter,  and  are  rightly  rendered  in 
the  Revised  Version.]  Here  we  have,  accord- 
ing to  the  view  presented  at  the  close  of  the 
comments  on  ver.  I'i,  the  second  member  of 
the  comparison  begun  in  that  verse.  The 
substance  of  the  first  member  is  repeated,  in 
the  changed  terms  demanded  by  the  inter- 


vening .statements,  and  then  the  regular  for- 
mula, even  so,  introduces  what  virtually 
completes  the  comparison  there  begun,  the 
precise  terms  being  changed  to  conform  to 
the  restatement  of  the  first  member  of  the 
comparison  in  this  verse.  The  elliptical  form 
in  which  the  last  j>art  of  each  member  is 
stated  requires  the  supply  of  some  such  nomi- 
natives as  judsmcnt  came  and  the  free  gift 
came.  These  particular  expressions  are  bor- 
rowed from  ver.  16.  [De  Wette  and  Meyer 
simply  supi)ly  :  It  happened  or  came.]  There 
is  a  twofold  ambiguity  in  the  expression 
translated  by  the  otlciice  of  one,  by  the 
righteousness  of  one  ;  the  more  simple  and 
natural  translation  would  he— by  one  offence, 
by  one  righteousness.  The  latter  translation 
is  recommended  by  its  greater  simplicity  and 
by  the  absence  of  the  article  in  Greek,' and 
is  liable  to  no  objection  sufficient  to  counter- 
balance these  arguments.  [Tiie  condemnation 
is  to  '"death,"  with  whatever  this  may  in- 
clude. The  righteousness  (fincat'ufia)  here,  in 
contrast  with  the  trespass  or  fall  of  Adam,  is 
supposed  to  differ  in  meaning  from  its  use  in 
ver.  16,  where  it  is  opposed  to  condemnation. 
It  probably  is  here  equivalent  to  the  one 
obedient,  righteous  act  of  Christ  (in  death). 
Meyer  and  Godet,  however,  give  it  the  same 
meaning  in  both  places — a  justifying  sentence 
or  judgment  on  the  part  of  God  on  the  ground 
of  Christ's  sacrificial  death.  We  think  it 
should  be  referred  to  Christ  who  .stands  over 
against  the  one  that  sinned,  and  should  be 
explained  by  the  exactly  paralled  ^''obedience 
of  the  One"  in  the  following  verse.  It  seems 
to  denote  the  ground  of  the  believer's  justifi- 
cation so  far  as  this  depends  on  the  active 
obedience  of  Christ.]  The  difficulty  arising 
from  the  second  'all  men,'  seeming  to  make 
the  justification  as  universal  as  the  condemna- 
tion, is  met  by  recalling  the  'they  which  re- 
ceive,' etc.,  of  ver.  17.     The  only  reason  why 


1  Or,  as  Prof.  Roise  pats  it :  opa, 


a  conclusion  from  I  out  any  accompanying  -word  to  define  it,  if  it  refers  to 


what  precedes;  ovv,  a  resumption  of  the  sentence  which 
was  begun  in  ver.  12.    We  may  here  observe  that  apa, 
with  a  ditferent  accent,  is  used  as  an  interrogative  par- 
ticle.—iF.) 
*  Wherever  in  this  section  the  word  one  occurs,  with- 


a. person,  it  is  preceded  by  the  article  (ver.  1.^,  17  thrice, 
19) ;  in  ver.  12, 16,  the  place  of  the  article  is  supplied  by 
the  word  man  in  the  first  and  by  the  words  that  sinned 
in  the  second. 


142 


KOMANS. 


[Ch.  V. 


19.  For  as  by  one  man's  disobedience  many  were  |       the  one  man's  disobedience  the  many  were  made 


the  former  is  not  as  universal  as  the  latter  is 
because  some  do  not  receive  it.  Compare 
notes  on  3  :  24.     Unto  justification  of  life. 

Justification  leading  to  and  resulting  in  eter- 
nal life.  [As  the  apostle  seems  to  say  that 
'the  many'  and  'the  all'  who  are  condemned 
in  Adam  are  the  same  'many'  and  the  same 
'all'  who  are  justified  and  saved  in  Christ, 
we  are  sometimes  asked  why  "all"  does  not 
mean  "all"  in  the  one  case  as  well  as  in  the 
other?  The  answer  generally  given  is  that 
the  apostle  here  represents  the  objective  suffi- 
ciency of  the  atonement,  and  that  it  did  not 
belong  to  the  scope  of  the  passage  to  dwell  on 
its  subjective  efficacy.  "His  only  object,"  says 
Meyer,  "was  to  set  forth  the  all-embracing, 
blessed  objective  consequence  of  the  one  justi- 
cation  (SiKaCwfia)  in  contrast  to  the  all-destruc- 
tive, objective  consequence  of  the  one  trespass. 
Hence,  just  as  little  can  anything  be  deduced 
from  our  passage  as  from  11 :  32  in  favor  of  a 
final  restoration."  Yet  the  apostle  does  limit 
the  many  and  the  all  who  are  through  Christ's 
grace  justified  unto  eternal  life  to  those  who 
'''receive  the  abundance  of  grace  and  of  the 
gift  of  righteousness."^  By  the  apostle's 
scheme  of  doctrine  all  men,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  are  divided  into  two  classes,  the  one 
class  under  the  headship  of  Adam  and  the 
other  under  the  headship  of  Christ,  and  by 
the  same  scheme  it  is  everywhere  supposed 
that  as  all  those  who  are  reckoned  in  the  first 
Adam  do  actually  pattern  after  him,  the  sin- 
ning one,  so  all  those  who  are  enrolled  in 
Christ  and  are  justified  in  him  do  actually 
pattern  after  the  righteous  One.  If,  now,  it 
can  be  shown  that  the  many  and  the  all  who 
are  by  nature  and  of  necessity  in  the  line  of 
the  first  Adam,  where  is  condemnation,  sin, 
and  death,  do  actually  betake  themselves  to 
Christ  and  transfer  themselves  through  divine 
grace  to  the  line  of  the  second  Adam,  do  act- 
ually repent  of  their  "many  trespasses"  and 
experience  God's  pardoning  love,  do  actually 


receive  of  the  fullness  of  Christ's  grace  and 
righteousness,  and  do  actually  pattern  after 
the  Great  Exemplar,  then,  and  not  other- 
wise, will  the  salvation  of  all  men  be  clearly 
proved.  Besides,  the  apostle  elsewhere  speaks 
of  the  resurrection  of  the  unjust  as  well  as  of 
the  just,  of  those  who  perish  as  well  as  of  those 
who  are  saved,  and  of  those  "whose  end  is 
perdition"  and  "  who  shall  suffer  punishment, 
even  eternal  destruction  from  the  presence  of 
the  Lord  and  from  the  glory  of  his  power." 
A  few  words  in  regard  to  the  future  condition 
of  those  dying  in  infancy.  We  scarcely  need 
an  apostle  to  tell  us  that  a  condemnation  and 
death  has  been  visited  upon  them  on  account 
of  sin  not  their  own;  hence  on  account  of 
Adam's  transgression.  A  part  of  this  penalty 
they,  in  common  with  us  all,  must  suffer. 
The  great  trouble  respecting  their  case  has 
reference  to  the  evil  that  is  in  their  hearts — 
their  native  depravity,  their  "original  sin." 
With  the  elder  Hodge,  "  we  believe  that  the 
grace  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus  secures  the 
salvation  of  all  who  have  no  personal  sins  to 
answer  for."  And  the  ground  of  our  belief 
is  the  assurance  that  Christ  who  died  for  our 
fallen  race,  who  is  a  propitiation  for  the  sins 
of  the  whole  world,  who  died  for  all,  and  who 
tasted  death  for  every  one,  has  not  necessarily 
died  in  vain  for  any  one  of  Adam's  descend- 
ants. To  suppose  that  our  dj'ing  infants  can 
have  no  Saviour,  and  no  participancy  in  his 
salvation,  but  are  necessarily  debarred  from 
the  benefits  of  Christ's  death,  is  to  antagonize 
and  overthrow  the  glorious  gospel  of  the 
blessed  God.-  Of  one  thing  we  are  absolutely 
certain,  that  our  offspring,  early  called  from 
earth,  have  no  deeds  done  in  the  body  to 
answer  for,  and  hence  will  not  be  condemned 
for  actual  sin  in  the  "judgment  of  the  great 
day."  For  further  discussion  of  these  topics, 
see  Dr.  Arnold's  remarks  in  Appendix  B.] 

19.  For  as  by  [the]  one  man's  disobe- 
dience [the]  many  were   made   sinners. 


1  Prof.  Boise,  making  the  statements  of  ver.  18  assume 
the  form  of  general  truths,  gives  this  comment:  "The 
judgment  enters  into  the  midst  of  all  men,  leading 
them  with  certainty  into  condemnation,  if  no  deliverer, 
no  Saviour  appears.  The  free  gift  enters  into  the 
midst  of  all  meu,  leading  them  into  justification  of  life, 
if  they  receive  the  abuniance  of  the  grace  and  of  the 


gift  of  righteousness.    Alas,  that  so  many  forget  or 

reject  this  condition  !  " — (F.) 
2  Hence  we  deem  the  couplet  (of  Robert  Robinson 7) 

to  be  dogmatically  correct  as  relating  to  infants: 
They  die  for  Adam  sinned, 
They  live  for  Jesus  died.— (F.) 


Ch.  v.] 


ROMANS. 


143 


made  sinners,  so  by  the  obedience  of  one  shall  many 
be  made  righteous. 


sinners,  even  so  through  the  obedience  of  the  one 


Much  depends  in  this  verse  on  the  right 
understanding  of  the  verb  transhited  'were 
made'  and  'shall  be  made.'  Dr.  Hodge 
makes  the  remarkable  statement  that  this 
verb  "never  in  the  New  Testament  means 
to  make,  in  the  sense  of  effecting  or  causing  a 
person  or  thing  to  be  in  its  character  or  nature 
other  than  it  was  before."  It  is  a  sufficient 
refutation  of  this  statement  to  refer  to  a  few 
places  out  of  the  more  than  a  score  in  which 

it   is   used.       (Uatt.  24:45,  47;  20:21,23;   Acts  7:  10,  27,  35; 

Web.  7:28;  2  Peter  1:8.)  Several  of  the  earlier  trans- 
lators put  'became'  instead  of  'were  made,' 
but  'shall  be  made'  in  the  latter  place  where 
it  occurs.  To  constitute,  to  appoint,  are  the 
most  common  meanings  of  the  verb.  On  the 
twofold  use  of  the  word  'many'  (properly 
'the  many,'  for  it  has  the  article  in  both 
places),  Alford  has  this  criticism:  "In  order 
to  make  the  comparison  more  strict,  the  all 
who  have  been  made  sinners  are  weakened  to 
the  indefinite  the  many,  and  many  [Alford 
refers  to  such  passages  as  Matt.  26:  28;  Mark 
10:45]  who  shall  be  made  righteous  are  en- 
larged to  the  indefinite  the  many.  Thus  a 
common  term,  of  quantity  is  found  for  both, 
the  one  extending  to  its  largest  numerical 
interpretation,  the  other  restricted  to  its 
smallest."  This  criticism  is  very  objection- 
able. It  does  not  agree  with  the  twofold  all 
of  the  preceding  verse.  It  makes  an  inco- 
herent use  of  the  article.  It  is  too  great  a 
refinement  of  criticism  to  attribute  to  Paul. 
And  the  last  statement,  restricting  tlie  many 
that  shall  be  made  righteous  to  its  smallest 
numerical  interpretation,  is  rebuked  by  Kev. 
7  : 9  and  a  multitude  of  similar  passages. 
Much  better  is  Dr.  J.  Brown's  comment  on 
these  verses :  "  In  fine,  on  the  one  hand,  there 
is  a  multitude  of  men  of  every  description, 
condemned  and  dying,  entirely  on  account 
of  the  one  fault  of  the  one  man  Adam; 
and,  on  the  other,  a  multitude  of  men  of  every 
description,  justified  and  living,  entirely  on 
account  of  the  one  man  Jesus  Christ."  [May 
not  Alford's  'the  one'  mean  'the  latter' 1] 
AVhat  is  the  relation  of  ver.  18  and  19  to  each 
other?  Is  it  that  ver.  18  mainly  compares 
things  and  ver.  19  mainly  compares  persons? 
Is  it  tiiat  ver.  18  shows  how  men  arc  regarded 
by  God  on  account  of  their  respective   con- 


nections with  Adam  and  Christ,  and  ver.  19 
shows  how  they  are  treated  by  him  on  account 
of  those  respective  connections?  Or  is  it 
rather  that  ver.  18  is  to  be  interpreted  from  a 
forensic  point  of  view  and  ver.  19  from  a 
moral  point  of  view?  In  other  words,  does 
ver.  18  relate  to  justification  and  ver.  19  to 
sanctification?  A  comparison  of  the  terms 
of  the  two  verses  seems  favorable  to  this  last 
view.  On  the  one  hand,  we  have  'offence' 
and  'condemnation,'  'righteousness'  and 
'justification,'  abstract  and  legal  terms;  on 
the  other,  'disobedience'  and  'obedience,' 
'made  sinners'  and  'made  righteous,'  moral 
and  practical  terms.  It  might,  perhaps,  be 
added  that  the  future  tense  of  the  verb,  'shall 
be  made'  righteous,  agrees  well  with  this  in- 
terpretation, as  sending  the  thoughts  forward 
to  the  future  perfected  righteousness  of  the 
saints;  but  it  must  in  fairness  be  owned  that 
the  use  of  the  future— 'shall  reign  in  life,'  in 
ver.  17 — weakens  the  force  of  that  considera- 
tion. The  fact  that  the  proposed  interpreta- 
tion of  ver.  19  introduces  the  subject  of  sanc- 
tification in  chapter  5,  whereas  it  is  generally 
held  that  it  does  not  come  in  until  the  begin- 
ning of  chapter  6,  is  of  little  weight;  for  the 
difference  is  only  of  two  verses,  and  the  divi- 
sion of  the  chapters  has  no  such  authority  that 
we  may  not  disregard  or  change  it  whenever 
there  is  good  reason,  as  there  sometimes  un- 
questionably is,  for  doing  so.  [Prof.  Cremer 
says:  "This  verb  denotes  an  actual  appoint- 
ment or  setting  down  in  a  definite  place.  .  .  . 
The  choice  of  the  expression  in  Kom.  5  :  19 
rather  arose  partly  from  its  not  teing  simply 
the  moral  quality  that  is  referred  to,  but, 
above  all,  the  thence  resulting  situation  of 
those  who  are  sinners  (compare  ver  18,  which 
serves  as  a  foundation  for  ver.  19),  partl3' 
from  regard  to  the  influence  exercised  from 
another  quarter,  especially  to  the  idea  of  jus- 
tification," etc.  "As  our  union  with  Adam," 
says  Dr.  Gifford,  "made  us  all  participators 
in  the  effects  of  his  transgression,  and  thereby 
constituted  us  sinners,  so  union  with  Christ, 
who  is  our  righteousness,  is  that  which  con- 
stitutes us  essentially  and  formally  [not  in- 
herently] righteous."  The  ideas  of  inherent 
sin  and  inherent  righteousness  belong,  he 
says,  to  the  following  chapter.     Both  Philippi 


144 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  V. 


and  Meyer  interpret  the  verb  as  meaning — to 
set  down  as,  or,  put  in  the  category  of.  "The 
many,"  says  Meyer,"  "were  put  actually  in 
the  category  of  sinners,  because,  namely,  they 
sinned  in  and  with  the  fall  of  Adam.  Thus 
through  the  disobedience  of  the  one  man, 
because  all  had  part  in  it,  has  the  position  of 
all  become  that  of  sinners.  The  consequence 
of  this — that  they  were  subjected  to  punish- 
ment, were  treated  as  sinners,  and  the  like — 
is  not  here  expressly  included,  but  after  the 
foregoing  is  obvious  of  itself."  Further  on 
he  .says:  "Shall  be  placed  in  the  category  of 
the  righteous.  .  .  .  Thus  the  obedience  of 
the  One  has  caused  that  at  the  judgment  the 
many  shall  by  God's  sentence  enter  into  the 
category  of  the  righteous,  as  the  disobedience 
of  the  one  had  caused  the  many  to  enter  the 
opposite.  In  both  cases  the  meritorious  cause 
is  the  objective  act  of  the  two  heads  of  the 
race  (the  sin  of  Adam — the  death  of  Christ), 
to  whom  belong  the  many  on  both  sides; 
while  the  subjective,  mediating  cause  is  the 
individual  relation  to  those  acts  (communion 
in  Adam's  fall — faith)."  Lange  calls  this 
"Augustinian  dogmatics."  Meyer  would 
seem  to  be  wrong  in  one  thing,  for  believers 
are  put  in  the  category'  of  the  righteous  long 
before  they  reach  the  judgment.  They  are 
constituted  or  established  as  righteous  as  soon 
as  faith  in  Christ  is  imputed  to  tliem  for  right- 
eousness. In  Dr.  Schaff's  view,  "the  many 
were  made  sinners  either  by  virtual  partici- 
pation in  the  fiill  of  Adam  or  by  actual  prac- 
tice, by  repeating,  as  it  were,  the  fall  of  Adiim 
in  their  sinful  conduct.  Both  interpretations 
are  perfectly  grammatical  and  do  not  exclude 
each  other.';  Dr.  Hodge  discards  this  "idea 
of  a  mysterious  identity  of  Adam  and  his 
race,"  yet  seems  to  acknowledge  it  in  part 
when  he  says  "that  in  virtue  of  the  union, 
representative  and  natural,  between  Adam 
and  his  posterity,  his  sin  is  the  ground  of 
their  condemnation — that  is,  of  their  subjec- 
tion to  penal  evils."  In  his  view,  we  are 
"constituted  sinners  in  a  legal  or  forensic 
sense;"  in  other  words,  we  are  "regarded 
and  treated"  as  sinners  because  of  the  sin 
of  Adam,  our  appointed  head  and  repre- 
sentative, the  sin  of  Adam  being  thus  "the 
judicial  ground  of  the  condemnation  of  his 
race."  An  imputation  of  this  kind,  which 
consists  in  putative  sinning,  Dr.  Schafl"  calls 


a  "legal  fiction."  Alford  thinks  the  kind  of 
sin  spoken  of  in  this  passage  is  "both  original 
and  actual,"  and  furthermore  says:  "In 
Christ  and  united  to  him  a  man  is  made 
righteous,  not  by  a  fiction  or  inundation  only 
of  Christ's  righteousness,  but  by  a  real  and 
living  spiritual  union  with  a  righteous  Head 
as  a  righteous  member."  Prof.  Stuart's  view 
is  that  "men  through  the  disobedience  of 
Adam  did  become  or  were  constituted  actual 
sinners."  Similarlj^  to  De  Wette,  he  holds 
the  sin  and  the  righteousness  of  this  passage 
to  be  wholly  personal,  a  view  which  makes 
condemnation  and  death  to  be  solely  the 
result  of  individual  transgression.  But  this 
sentiment  is  no  less  contradictory  to  the  truth 
of  facts  than  it  is  antagonistic  to  some  of  the 
apostle's  statements  and  to  his  general  argu- 
ment. In  the  phrase  'shall  be  made  right- 
eous,' "the  future  of  the  verb  is  used  as  in 
3:20,  because  justification  is  to  be  conceived 
as  an  act  not  j-et  come  to  an  end,  but  continu- 
ing in  the  future."  (Philippi.)  The  'for' 
with  which  this  verse  begins  shows  that  this 
verse  is  explanatory  and  corroborative  of  the 
preceding,  while  the  'as'  (wo-n-fp,  not  ws  as  in 
the  last  verse)  not  only  resumes  the  compari- 
son but  indicates  it  in  a  more  precise  manner 
— for  just  as,  etc.  We  therefore  conceive  that 
the  verses  are  altogether  too  closely  united  to 
allow  the  expression  of  such  difl^'erent  views 
(the  forensic  and  the  ethical)  as  Dr.  Arnold 
and  many  others  here  find.  "  The  word  right- 
eous^" says  Godet,  "is  applied  as  the  sense 
of  this  whole  part  requires  to  imputed  right- 
eousness." Prof.  Cremer,  as  we  have  seen, 
explains  constituted  righteous  by  the  'justifi- 
cation '  (5iKai'u)(7is)  of  the  preceding  verse.  He 
also  says  that  "  'to  justify'  (SiKaiovv),  as  used 
by  Paul,  denotes  nothing  else  than  the  judicial 
act  of  God  whereby  man  is  pronounced  free 
from  guilt  and  punishment  and  is  thus  recog- 
nized or  represented  as  righteous."  In  2  :  13, 
the  words  "righteous  before  God"  are  par- 
ailed  with  the  verb  "shall  be  justified."  So 
this  clause,  "shall  be  set  down  as  righteous," 
"cannot  mean  that  by  the  obedience  of  one 
the  many  shall  be  made  holy."  (Hodge.)  In 
regard  to  the  obedience  of  Christ,  some,  like 
Meyer,  refer  it  to  the  death  of  Christ,  which 
was  pre-eminently  his  obedience  to  the  will 
of  the  Father  (Phii.2:8;  Heb.5:8),  while  others 
refer  it  to  his  "collective  life  obedience,"  not 


Ch.  v.] 


ROMANS. 


145 


20  Moreover  the  law  entered,  that  the  offence  might  I  20  shall  the  many  be  made  righteous.    And  •  the  law 
abound.    But  where  sin  abounded,  grace   did    much  came  in  beside,  that  the  trespass  might  abound  ;  but 

more  abound  :  I       where  sin  abounded,  grace  did  abound  more  exceed- 


exoluding,  of  course,  his  obedience  unto  death. 
The  emphasis  which  the  Scriptures  place  on 
the  obedience  of  Christ  to  the  will  of  God 
plainly  shows  us  that  the  atonement  of  Christ 
had  primarily  a  Godward  efficacy.  How 
thankful  we  may  well  be  that  the  Saviour's 
obedience  w'as  so  different  from  that  of  any 
who  thereby  have  been  constituted  righteous! 
Had  he  lived,  though  but  for  one  moment,  so 
imperfect,  so  unhol}',  as  we  are,  our  salvation 
must  have  been  impossible,  for  we  never  could 
have  heard  of  that  obedience  and  that  right- 
eousness which  shall  justify  many.] 

20.  ["The  apostle  briefly  notices  what  the 
Mosaic  law  has  contributed  to  this  condition  " 
(De  Wette),  or,  "  What  position  does  the 
law  occupy  in  the  religious  history  of  man- 
kind." (Boise.)]  Moreover.  Besides  the 
fact  of  many  being  made  sinners,  and  as  a 
transition  point  to  the  result  of  many  being 
made  righteous.  The  law — that  is,  the  law 
of  Moses.  [Here,  as  in  ver.  13,  the  word  law 
is  without  the  article,  and  yet  must  have  the 
specific  reference  indicated.  Prof.  Cremer 
says:  "The  article  is  usually  wanting  in 
places  where  stress  is  not  laid  upon  its  his- 
torical impress  or  outward  form,  but  upon  the 
conception  itself;  not  upon  the  law  which 
God  gave,  but  upon  law  as  given  by  God,  and 
as  therefore  the  only  one  that  is  or  can  be. 
So  especiallj'  in  passages  where  law  (vdfios)  is 
used  alternately  with  and  without  the  article." 
As  a  word  of  definite  import  it  can,  like  a 
proper  name,  dispense  with  the  article.] 
Entered.  Literally,  came  in  besides.  The 
verb  is  the  same  as  that  translated  entered  in 
ver.  12,  with  an  additional  preposition  pre- 
fixed, signifying  beside.  The  two  things 
mentioned  in  ver.  19  do  not  form  a  complete 
account  of  God's  dealings  with  men  ;  the  law 
came  in  besides.  [According  to  Meyer:  the 
law  came  in  alongside  of  the  sin  which  had 
already  entered.]  It  is  true,  that  the  law  had 
been  mentioned  before,  in  ver.  13  :  but  it  is 
left  out  of  view  from  that  point,  and  is  referred 
to  again  now,  in  a  new  connection,  and  for  a 
new  purpose.  That  the  offence  might 
abound.  [In  order  that  the  trespass  (of 
Adam?)  might  be  multiplied ;  or,  as  Dr.  Gif- 


ford  puts  it,  in  order  "that  sin  which  already 
existed,  however  dormant  or  unrecognized, 
might  take  the  definite  form  of  active  trespass 
or  transgression  of  a  known  law."]  It  is 
sometimes  needful  to  stimulate  or  develop 
the  disease  to  a  certain  degree,  in  order  to  pre- 
pare for  the  more  effectual  application  of  the 
remedy.  Compare  7:  8,  and  notes.  [The 
law  not  only  brings  sin  to  consciousness  but 
calls  forth  evil  desire  and  occasions  trans- 
gression. See  4:  15.  "Without  the  law," 
says  De  Wette,  "there  is  no  Christ.  If  now 
the  manifestation  of  Ch;-ist  was  without  doubt 
a  worthy  purpose  of  God,  need  we  refuse  to 
recognize  even  in  the  activity  of  the  law  a 
divine  purpose?"  Calvin  says:  "It  was 
needful  that  men's  ruin  should  be  more  fully 
discovered  to  them,  in  order  that  a  passage 
might  be  opened  for  the  favor  of  God.  They 
were,  indeed,  shipwrecked  before  the  law  was 
given  ;  as,  however,  they  seemed  to  themselves 
to  swim  while  in  their  destruction,  they  were 
thrust  down  into  the  deep  that  their  deliver- 
ance might  appear  more  evident  whence  they 
emerge  beyond  all  human  expectation." 

And  therefore  Law  was  given  them  to  evince 
Their  natural  pravity,  by  stirring  up 
Sin  against  Law  to  fight ;  that  when  they  see 
Law  can  discover  sin,  but  not  remove. 
Save  by  those  shadowy  expiations  weak. 
The  blood  of  bulls  and  goats,  they  may  conclude 
Some  blood  more  precious  must  be  paid  for  man. 

—(Milton.)] 

But  where  sin  abounded,  grace  did 
much  more  abound.  [De  Wette  here  as- 
signs to  '  where '  (o5)  the  very  rare  meaning 
of  M'Ae?i.]  'But'  this  (namely,  the  making 
of  the  ofl^ense  to  abound)  was  not  God's  ulti- 
mate end  in  bringing  in  the  law  ;  for  'where 
sin  abounded,  grace  did  much  more  abound.' 
The  word  'oflfence'  is  dropped,  and  the  word 
'sin  '  put  in  its  place,  as  being  a  more  generic 
term,  and  a  more  suitable  antithesis  to  'grace.' 
The  word  translated  'abound'  in  the  last  part 
of  the  verse  is  not  the  same  as  that  so  trans- 
lated in  the  former  part,  'that  the  oflfence 
might  abound.'  Both  words  are  commonly 
translated  as  here,  though  the  one  used  in  the 
last  part  of  the  verse  much  more  frequently 


146 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  V. 


21  That  as  sin  hath  reigned  unto  death,  even   so  I  21  ingly:  that,  as  sin  reigned  in  death,  even  so  might 
might  grace  reign  through  righteousness  unto  eternal  grace  reigu  through  righteousness  unto  eternal  life 

life  by  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord.  |        through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord. 


than  the  other.  It  is  difficult  to  make  a  distinc- 
tion between  these  two  words  throughout  in 
transhition.  The  Greek  language  is  so  copious 
in  nicedistinctionsof  words,  that  it  is  impossible 
to  use  a  different  and  equally  suitable  English 
equivalent— copious  as  our  own  tongue  is — for 
every  different  Greek  word.  [Philippi  makes 
the  latter  verb,  in  its  simple  form,  stronger  in 
meaning  than  the  former,  its  mo?'e  (n-epKrcroi') 
denoting  absolute  abundance,  while  the  more 
(ttAcov)  of  the  former  verb  denotes  only  com- 
parative abundance.]  In  the  case  of  the  two 
words  here  represented  by  abound^  the  one 
used  in  tlie  former  part  of  the  verse  might  be 
translated  multiply^  or  increase.  Both  these 
words  are  regularly  used  as  the  equivalents  of 
Greek  verbs  different  from  those  here  used, 
and  from  each  other.  So  difficult — nay,  so 
impracticable — is  it,  to  conform  invariably 
and  uniformly,  to  one  of  the  soundest  and 
most  important  rules  of  faithful  translation. 
'Did  much  more  abound.'  [Thissuperabound- 
ing  of  grace  has,  of  course,  no  reference  to 
the  number  of  individuals  saved.  All  have 
sinned  and  no  more  than  all  can  by  grace  be 
saved.  On  this  superabounding  grace  to  be 
experienced  by  penitent  believers,  Chalmers 
says:  "It  is  likely  enough  that  the  apostle 
may  have  had  in  his  mind  the  state  of  the 
redeemed  when  they  are  made  to  reign  in  life 
by  Jesus  Christ — as  contrasted  with  what  the 
state  of  man  would  have  been  had  Adam  per- 
sisted in  innocency."]  This  'much  more'  is 
expressed  by  prefixing  a  preposition  to  the 
verb  'abound' — grace  did  superabound.  On 
this  expression  Bengel  has  one  of  his  pithy 
epigrammatic  notes:  "He  who  conquers 
the  conqueror  of  another  is  a  third,  superior 
to  either:  Sin  conquered  man;  grace  con- 
quered sin  :  therefore  grace  is  the  supreme 
power."  ^ 

21.  That  [in  order  that]  even  as  siu  hath 
reigned  —  better,  sin  reigned — because  the 
standing  point  of  the  sentence  i«  the  perfected 
reign  of  grace  and  righteousness  hereafter. 
[Observe  how  sin  is  personified  and  repre- 
sented as  reigning  like  a  king.  How  mighty 
has  been  its  reign  and  how  fearful  the  results!] 


Unto  death— literally,  in  death;  death  was 
the  central  act  in  which  sin  reigned,  the  arena 
of  its  triumph.  ["Reigned  in  virtue  of 
death."  (Meyer.)]  It  is  one  of  the  com- 
monest defects  of  our  English  Bible  that  it 
does  not  distinguish  accurately  enough  be- 
tween the  Greek  prepositions  corresponding 
with  in  and  unto.  This  fault  is  remedied  in 
most  of  the  newer  revisions,  as  that  of  Dr. 
Noyes,  and  of  the  Bible  Union,  [and  of  the 
more  recent  Canterbury  Revision].  Even  so 
might  grace  reign — so  also  grace  may  reign. 
[Sin  has  reigned,  death  has  reigned,  grace  will 
reign.]  Through  righteousness — by  means 
of  righteousness — that  is,  the  righteousness  of 
Christ,  as  in  the  preceding  verses:  not  in 
righteousness,  as  it  might  have  been,  if  the 
reference  had  been  mainly  to  our  being  made 
personally  righteous.  Unto  eternal  life. 
[Dr.  Hodge,  in  his  comments  on  the  closing 
part  of  this  chapter,  thus  remarks  :  ' '  That  the 
benefits  of  redemption  shall  far  outweigh  the 
evils  of  the  fall,  is  here  clearly  asserted." 
And  one  point  given  by  him  as  confirmatory 
of  this  view  is,  that  "The  number  of  the  saved 
will  doubtless  greatly  exceed  the  number  of 
the  lost.  Since  the  half  of  mankind  die  in 
infanc3',  and,  according  to  the  Protestant 
doctrine,  are  heirs  of  salvation,  and  since  in 
the  future  state  of  the  church  the  knowledge 
of  the  Lord  is  to  cover  the  earth,  we  have 
reason  to  believe  that  the  lost  will  bear  to  the 
saved  no  greater  proportion  than  the  inmates 
of  a  prison  do  to  the  mass  of  the  community."] 
Through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  "  The 
last  word  in  this  section  is  Jesus  Christ  our 
Lord,  the  one  glorious  solution  of  the  Adamic 
fall  and  the  dark  problem  of  sin.  Adam  dis- 
appears, and  Christ  alone  remains  master  of 
the  field  of  battle,  having  slain  the  tyrants, 
Sin  and  Death."  (Schaff.)  "Who  can  rise 
from  the  perusal  and  contemplation  of  this 
wondrous  passage,  full  of  such  profound  views 
and  pregnant  meanings,  with  all  its  variously 
complicated  yet  beautifully  discriminated 
relations  and  interlacements  of  members  and 
thoughts,  without  an  overpowering  admira- 
tion and  irresistible  conviction  of  the  super- 


1  "  Victi  victorem  vincens,  tertius  utroque  melior  est.    Hominem  vicit  peccatum ;  peccatum  vicit  gratia :  ergo 
gratiae  vis  maxima." 


Ch.  VI.] 


ROMANS. 


147 


CHAPTEK  VI. 


WHAT  shall  we  say  then  ?    Shall  we  continue  in  sin, 
that  grace  may  alioiind? 
2  (iod  forbid.    How  shall  we,  that  are  dead  to  sin, 
live  any  longer  therein  ? 


1  What  shall  we  say  then?  Shall'we  continue  in  sin, 

2  that  grace  may  abound?    GoJ  forbid.    We  who  died, 


human  wisdom  that  must  have  dictated  even 
its  minutest  detail  1  "     (Forbes.  Y 


Ch.  6 :  The  oospkl  adkqitate  to  pro- 
cure THE  SANCTIFICATION  OF  MAN. 

[With  the  last  chapter,  Paul,  as  is  thought 
by  many,  completes  his  strictly  doctrinal 
statement,  and  now  for  a  time  devotes  his 
attention  in  main  part  to  drawing  inferences, 
making  explanations,  answering  objections, 
and  the  like.  The  apostle,  however,  has  much 
new  and  important  doctrinal  matter  yet  to  be 
presented.  He  now  proceeds  to  consider  the 
"moral  effects  of  justification  "  (De  Wette), 
and  in  this  chapter  sliows  that  justification  by 
faith  is  incompatible  with  living  in  sin.]  This 
and  tiie  two  following  chapters  treat  specially 
of  sanctificalion,  and  show  that  the  way  of 
justification  by  free  grace  through  faith,  in- 
stead of  aftbrding  license  to  sin,  is  more  favor- 
able to  holiness  than  any  system  of  justifica- 
tion by  works  could  possibly'  be.  In  the  first 
verse,  the  objection,  tiiat  if  grace  abounds  in 
consequence  of  sin,  we  may  sin,  in  order  tliat 
grace  may  abound,  is  stated  in  the  form  of  a 
question;  in  the  second  verse,  the  question  is 
answered  in  the  negative,  the  validity  of  the 
question  is  denied ;  the  remainder  of  the  chap- 
ter is  occupied  in  explaining  the  grounds  of 
that  denial,  under  these  two  heads:  1.  The 
justified  believer,  agreeably  to  the  very  im- 
port of  his  baptism,  is  brought  into  such  a 
connection  and  conformity  with  Christ,  as 
dying  and  rising  to  a  new  life,  that  he  cannot 


continue  in  the  old  life  of^sin.  (ver. s-u.)  2. 
The  very  fact  that  he  is  not  under  the  law, 
but  under  grace,  forbids  that  sin  should  have 
dominion  over  him,  for  his  relation  to  the 
law  and  to  grace  is  like  that  of  a  servant  to 
his  master ;  before  justification  he  is  a  servant 
of  sin,  under  an  influence  which  secures  his 
obedience  to  evil ;  after  justification  he  is  a 
servant  of  righteousness,  under  an  influence 
which  secures  his  obedience  to  good.  (ver.  u-23.) 

1.  What  shall  we  say  then?  The  form 
of  expression,  what  then  shall  we  say  ?  is  used 
by  Paul  to  introduce  some  objection  or  diffi- 
culty, as  at  3  :  5  and  4  :  1.  The  difl5culty  here 
is  suggested  by  what  he  had  said  in  the  last 
two  verses  of  the  preceding  chapter,  especially 
in  the  last  clause  of  ver.  20.  That  clause 
might  seem  to  imply  that  license  to  sin  was 
aftbrded  by  the  apostle's  doctrine  of  a  free 
forgiveness  and  justification,  or,  at  least,  that 
the  motives  to  a  holy  life  were  somewhat 
weakened.  It  is  the  object  of  this  chapter 
and  the  two  following  to  show  that,  in  fact, 
just  the  reverse  of  this  is  true.  Shall  Ave 
continue  (or,  may  we  persist)  in  sin?  The 
verb  is  in  the  subjunctive,  not  in  the  indica- 
tive future,  according  to  the  best  manuscripts, 
in  what  the  Greek  grammarians  call  the  de- 
liberative subjunctive,  answering  to  the  poten- 
tial in  English. 

2.  God  (orhid— let  it  not  be,  or,  far  be 
it — used  of  what  is  contrary  to  reverence  or 
precluded  by  some  acknowledged  fact  or 
truth.     See  note  on  3  :  4.     Both  are  true  here; 


1  General  note  in  regard  to  the  use  of  the  word  life 
(^loij)  in  the  New  Testament.  This  word  iuiri  is  used  in 
the  New  Testament  l''>a  times.  (By  John  66  times;  by 
Paul  38  times;  14  times  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans.) 
It  has  the  adjective  aiuii'to?,  eternal,  connected  with  it 
46  times  (23  times  by  John  ;  12  times  by  Paul.)  [Or  44. 
See  notes  on  aiuii'ios,  eternal,  on  2  :  7, 9.  'AiSios  1 :  20,  and 
aii^voiv  (of  the  ages),  Y.\)\\.  3:  11  ;  1  Tim:  1:  17,  are  like- 
wise rendered  eternal,  but  these  are  not  used  in  con- 
nection with  iiari.  According  to  the  Common  Version 
the  phrase,  eternal  life,  occurs  ten  times  in  Paul's  epis- 
tles. The  reading,  however,  in  1  Tim.  6 :  19  is  doubtful. 
The  phrase  is  also  found  in  one  of  Paul's  discourses. 
Acts  13.]  It  refers  clearly  to  natural  life  only  not  more 
than  half  a  score  of  times.    (Luke  1:  75  [omitted  in  the 


Revision];  16;  25;  Acts  8:  33;  17:  25;  Rom.  8:  38; 
1  Cor.  15:  19;  Phil.  1 :  20  ;  1  Tim.  4:  8;  James  4  :  14.) 
In  three  or  four  places  its  use  is  general  or  uncertain. 
(Luke  12:  15,  Rom.  6:  4;  11:  15.)  We  see  therefore 
that  the  word  relates  to  eternal  life  in  about  123  out  of 
135  times,  or  in  ten  cases  out  of  eleven. 

2  Prof.  Boise  remarks  that  the  first  person  plural 
subjunctive  is  much  more  frequently  hortatory  (let  us) 
than  deliberative.  In  the  third  person  the  indicative 
future  of  questions  is  more  frequent  than  the  subjunc- 
tive. (Winer,  285.)  This  conlinidng  iu  a  certain  state 
or  course,  Ellicott  says,  "is  a  tropical  u.se  of  the  verb 
peculiar  to  St.  Paul.  The  preposition  en-t  [in  composi- 
tion] appears  to  denote  rest  at  a  place  and  hints  at  a 
more  protracted  stay."    (po\.  1 :  23 ;  Phil.  1 :  24.)— (P.) 


148 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  VI. 


3  Know  ye  not,  that  so  many  of  us  as  were  baptized 
into  Jesus  Christ  were  baptized  into  his  death? 


3  to  sin,  how  shall  we  any  longfr  live  therein  ?    Or  are 
ye  ignorant   that   all  "we   who  were  baptized   into 

4  Christ  Jesus  were  baptized  into  his  death?    We  were 


the  precluding  fact  is  immediately  specified,  j 
How   shall   we,  that    are   dead   to   sin? 

How  shall  we,  beAng  such  as  died  to  sin  ? 
Here  we  have  again  the  compound  relative, 
with  its  suggestion  of  a  reason  noticed  at  1 :  25. 
Died  instead  of  'are  dead.'  See  on  5:15. 
[Possibly  the  tense  of  the  verb  has  special 
reference  to  the  time  of  baptism  when  in  and 
by  that  ordinance  a  solemn  profession  of 
deadness  to  sin  and  to  the  world  was  made. 
In  that  act  the  world  lost  sight  of  us  and  we 
lost  sight  of  the  world.  Godet,  speaking  of 
the  "mirage  of  absolute  deliverance,"  says 
that  "if  ever  a  believer  could  enter  into  the 
sphere  of  absolute  holiness,  a  new  fall,  like 
that  of  Adam,  would  be  needed  to  remove 
him  from  it;"  and  that  this  "death  to  sin  is 
not  an  absolute  cessation  of  sin  at  any  moment 
whatever,  but  an  absolute  breaking  of  the 
will  with  it,  a  state  no  doubt,  but  a  state  of  the 
will,  which  continues  only  so  long  as  it  keeps 
itself  under  the  control  of  faith  in  Christ's 
death  for  sin."  Our  death  to  sin  is  very  dif- 
ferent from  a  death  of  sin.  Still,  we  may  well 
be  thankful  that  there  is  a  divine  power  that 
can  help  our  feeble  and  uncertain  wills.  Alas 
'for  us  were  it  otherwise!]  Live  any  longer 
therein?  Still  live  in  it?  [Would  that  all 
Christians  who  by  and  in  their  baptism  pro- 
fessed deadness  to  sin  might  ever  keep  this 
verse  in  their  minds,  yea,  bind  it  as  a  phj'lac- 
tery  to  their  hearts  and  strive  to  carry  out 
its  teaching  into  consistent,  daily  practice! 
"Lavish  and  liberal,"  says  Chalmers,  "as 
the  gospel  is  of  its  forgiveness  of  the  past,  it 
has  no  toleration  either  for  the  purpose  or  for 
the  practices  of  sin  in  the  future."]  Mac- 
Knight  says  here,  and  on  ver.  10,  11,  "died 
by  sin,"  and  he  adds  this  comment:  "The 
common  translation,  how  shall  we  that  are 
dead  to  sin  live  any  longer  therein  ?  is  absurd, 


for  a  person's  living  in  sin  who  is  dead  to  it  is 
evidently  a  contradiction  in  terms."  What 
he  complains  of  as  ihe  fault  of  the  expression 
is  just  its  excellence.  The  apostle  wished  to 
show  that  it  was  a  contradiction  in  terms. 
But  the  dying  to  sin  \s  figurative,  the  living 
in  sin  literal,  but  both  equally  real.  If  a 
commentator  has  not  some  other  qualifications 
besides  a  critical  knowledge  of  grammar  and 
logic,  these  qualifications  will  be  a  hindrance 
to  him  in  interpreting  such  passages  as  "to 
know  the  love  of  Christ  which  passeth  knowl- 
edge," "less  than  the  least  of  all  saints" — 
literally,  "leaster  than  all  saints."  [Compare 
Milton's  "And  in  the  lowest  deep  a  lower 
deep."]  Even  Dr.  Campbell,  with  all  his 
learning  and  good  sense,  could  dilute  "Lord, 
I  believe;  help  thou  mine  unbelief,"  into 
"  Lord,  I  believe  ;  supply  thou  the  defects  of 
my  faith!  "  Whdre  was  the  cunning  rheto- 
rician ? 

3.  KnoAV  ye  not  (^are  ye  ignorant  would 
be  more  literal),  that  so  many  of  us  as 
were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ?  This 
is  a  very  literal  translation  of  the  apostle's 
words,  and  yet  it  seems  to  suggest  something 
which  those  words  do  not — namely,  that  only 
apart  of  those  addressed  "were  baptized  into 
Jesus  Christ."  To  avoid  this  misunderstand- 
ing, the  words  might  be  translated — not  less 
faithfully,  if  somewhat  less  literally — all  we 
who  were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ.  ["By 
baptism  into  Christ  we  are  initiated  into  a  par- 
ticipation of  Chri.st."  (Calvin.)  See  similar 
examples  in  1  Cor.  1  :  13;  10  :  2.  "Baptism 
contains  an  avowal  of  our  belonging  to  him 
[Christ]  as  our  Master,  of  our  union  with  him 
as  our  Head."  (Kipley.)i  "It  is  of  course 
obvious  that  the  idea  of  the  baptism  of  chil- 
dren was  wholly  foreign  to  this  view  of  the 
apostle."    (Meyer.)     "If  St.  Paul's  language 


1  "  BaTTTiieiv  eis  (literally,  to  baptize  into)  never  means 
anything  else  than  to  baptize  in  reference  to,  in  respect  to, 
and  the  more  special  definitions  of  its  import  are  fur- 
nished simply  by  the  context.  On  into  Christ  Jesus; 
compare  Acts  2:38;  8:16;  19:5.  Undoubtedly  the 
name  'Jesus'  was  named  in  baptizing.  But  the  con- 
ception of  becoming  immersed  into  Christ  is  to  be  set 
aside  and  is  not  to  be  supported  by  the  figurative 
.expression  in  Gal.  3 :  27.  The  mystic  character  of  our 
(jiassage  is  not  produced  by  so  vague  a  sensuous  con- 


ception, which,  moreover,  has  all  the  passages  against 
it  in  which  iSaTrTi^eii/  is  coupled  with  name  (Matt.  28 :  19  ; 
Acts  2  :  38  ;  10  :  48 ;  19:5;  1  Cor.  1  :  13),  but  is  based  on 
the  ethical  consciousness  of  that  intimate  appertaining 
to  Christ  into  which  baptism  translates  its  recipients." 
(Meyer.)  As  unto  seems  to  express  this  belonging  to 
better  than  into,  we  should  prefer  to  use  the  former 
word  before  what  have  been  sometimes  termed  the 
ideal  elements  of  baptism. — (F.) 


Ch.  VI.] 


ROMANS. 


149 


4  Therefore  we  are  buried  with  him  by  baptism  into 
death:  that  like  as  Christ  was  raised  up  froiu  the  dead 
by  the  glory  of  the  Father,  even  so  we  also  should  walk 
in  newness  of  life. 


buried  therefore  with  him  through  baptism  into 

death  :  that  like  as  Christ  was  raised  from  the  dead 

through  the  glory  of  the  Father,  so  we  also  might 

5  walk  in  newness  of  life.    For  if  we  have  become 


seems  exaggerated,  it  is  because  we  who  were 
baptized  as  unconscious  infants  can  hardly 
realize  what  baptism  was  to  the  adult  believer 
in  the  apostolic  age."  ("Speaker's  Commen- 
tary.")] We  were  baptized  into  union,  par- 
ticipation, conformity  with  Christ,  and  that 
in  respect  to  liis  death.  "  The  rite  of  immer- 
sion in  the  baptismal  water,  and  egress  from 
it,  was  used  as  a  symbol  of  breaking  off  all 
connection  with  the  previous  vicious  life  and 
giving  ourselves  to  a  new  and  purer  one." 
(Bloomfield. ) 

4.  Therefore.  [Because  we  are  dead,  have 
been  put  to  death  through  the  body  of  Christ. 
(7;  4.)  Our  burial  by  baptism  has  reference 
to  a  death  already  experienced.  Baptism,  as 
Godet  remarks,  is  thus  not  a  figure  of  dying, 
but  a  consequence,  an  external  proof  of  death.] 
The  word  'therefore'  assumes  that  the  ques- 
tion of  the  preceding  verse  admits  of  but  one 
answer:  "Yes,  we  know  this;"  or,  rather,  to 
suit  the  more  exact  form  of  the  original  ques- 
tion, as  above  suggested,  "  No,  we  are  not 
ignorant  of  this"  :  you  admit,  then,  that  we 
are  buried  with  him  by  baptism  into 
death.  The  verb,  as  in  the  previous  verse,  is 
ill  the  past  tense,  and  ought  to  be  translated 
— we  were  buried  with  him:  this  makes  the 
reference  to  the  act  and  the  time  of  bap- 
tism more  prominent,  than  the  present,  'are 
buried'  :  besides,  the  present  is  hardly  appro- 
priate to  describe  a  transient  act,  like  baptism. 
'By  baptism  into  death'  :  by  means  of  our 
baptism  into  his  death.  Compare  Col.  2:  12. 
[Meyer  says:  "In  reality  this  burial  with 
Christ  is  not  a  moral  tact  distinct  from  the 
having  died  with  him  ....  but  it  sets  forth 
the  fullness  and  completeness  of  the  relation, 
of  which  the  recipient,  in  accordance  with  the 
form  of  baptism,  so  far  as  the  latter  takes 
place  through   sinking  down   and  rising  up 

((caraSuCTis  and   avdSvcii),  beCOmCS  conscious  S21C- 

cessively.  The  recipient — thus  Paul  figur- 
atively represented  the  process — is  conscious, 
(rt)  in  the  baptism  generally  :  now  am  I 
entering  into  fellowship   with   the  death  of 


Christ;  (6)  in  the  immersion  in  particular : 
now  am  I  becoming  buried  \v\i\i  Christ;  (c) 
and  then  in  the  emergence  :  now  I  rise  to 
the  new  life  with  Christ.  Compare  on  Col. 
2:  12." 

Lange  speaks  of  being  "buried  in  death," 
but  the  phrase  in  ver.  3,  ''baptized  into 
death,"  shows  that  into  death  must  here  be 
connected  with  baptism.  The  absence  of  the 
article  after  baptism  gives  more  unity  to  the 
conception,  making  the  baptism  into  death 
as  a  single  idea.  "Buried  into  death,"  says 
De  Wette,  "if  not  nonsense  is  a  pleonasm." 
We  are  not  buried  in  order  to  die,  we  are 
buried  with  Christ  by  or  in  baptism-  because 
we  are  dead,  and  baptism  (immersion)  repre- 
sents not  only  our  death  but  burial.  The 
death  unto  which  we  are  baptized  is  left  in- 
de-finite  in  this  verse  (the  article  also  being 
probably  generic),  so  that  it  "might  be 
applied  at  once  to  his  (Christ's)  death  and 
ours  included  in  his."  (Godet.)  Meyer  also 
says  :  "  It  is  not  specially  the  death  of  Christ 
which  is  again  meant,  as  if  'his'  were  again 
annexed,  but  the  description  is  generalized  in 
a  way  that'could  not  be  misunderstood.  Who- 
soever, namely,  has  been  baptized  unto  the 
death  of  Christ,  has  in  fact  thereby  received 
baptism  unto  death;  that  is,  such  a  baptism 
that,  taken  away  by  it  from  his  previous 
vital  activity,  he  has  become  one  belonging  to 
death,  one  who  has  fallen  under  its  sway."]  i 
That  like  as  Christ  was  raised  up  from, 
the  dead — in  order  that,  as  Christ  ivas  raised, 
from  the  dead.  By  the  glory  of  the  Father 
— glory  and  power  (compare  1  Cor.  6:  14)  are 
cognate  ideas,  as  referred  to  God  ;  see  Col.  1 : 
11,  "  according  to  his  glorious  power."  Even 
so  we  also  should  walk  in  newness  of 
life.  [On  the  use  of  the  subjunctive  (literally  : 
in  order  that  we  m,ay  walk — that  is,  continu- 
ously) after  a  verb  in  the  past  tense  (were 
buried),  see  note  to  5:  7.  The  word  'walk,' 
as  used  of  moral  conduct,  occurs  some  thirtj^- 
three  times  in  Paul's  epistles.]  'Should 
walk  in  newness  of  life':  that  is,   in  a  new 


1  BoiTTio-fia.  The  termination  (mi)  in  Greek  nouns, 
generally  denotes  effect  or  state  rather  than  act.  But 
this  rule  is  not  invariable  (see,  for  example,  ykvvr]ij.a  in 
the  Lexicons;,  and  the  frequency  of  this  termination 


is  a  peculiarity  of  the  later  Greek.  There  are  two 
forms  of  this  word  in  Latin  (baptisma  aud  baptismus), 
but  they  are  used  indiscriminately.  Evidently  a  bap- 
tizing into  death  supposes  some  action. — (F.) 


150 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  VI. 


state,  of  which  the  characteristic  is  life. 
["  Not  the  life  that  is  lived  day  by  day  (Pw), 
but  the  life  which  liveth  in  us  (fu^)."  ("  Bible 
Commentary.")  See  Col.  3;  3,4.  "  Ye  rfietZ 
and  your  life  .  .  .  C/i?'zs^  our  life."  Had  the 
apostle  said  "  in  a  new  life,"  the  idea  of  new- 
ness would  have  been  less  prominent.  Com- 
pare 2  Cor.  5:  17.  De  Wette  says,  "The 
truth  of  the  figure  rests  upon  the  fact  that  the 
resurrection  of  Jesus,  as  every  resurrection, 
is  not  simply  something  physical,  but  also 
moral."  "When  you  hear  mention  made  of 
a  new  life,"  says  Chrysostom,  "be  sure  that 
implies  a  great  change  and  diversity.  For 
myself,  I  forthwith  burst  into  tears  and  groans 
when  I  reflect  what  strictness  Paul  demands 
of  us,  and  to  what  indolence  we  have  given 
ourselves  up,  relapsing  after  baptism  into  our 
previous  old  age,  returning  to  Egypt  and 
hankering  after  the  garlic,  though  we  have 
tasted  the  manna."]  There  are  two  Greek 
adjectives  which  are  alike  translated  7iew  in 
our  English  Testament,  but  there  is  a  very 
plain  distinction  between  them.  The  most 
convenient  passage  to  illustrate  that  distinc- 
tion is  the  one  in  which  our  Lord  speaks  of 
the  new  wine,  and  the  neio  bottles  and  the  old. 

(Matt.  9:  17;  Mark  2:  22;  Luke  5  :  37,38,39.)       The    adjCC- 

tive  neiv  (veos)  applied  to  the  wine  means  're- 
cently made,  nejv  as  to  age.'  The  adjective 
neiv  ((coivos)  applied  to  the  bottles  means  'neio 
as  to  quality,  unused,  unworn.'  No  matter 
how  long  ago  the  bottles  were  made,  if  they 
have  not  been  used,  if  they  have  not  lost  their 
elasticity  by  having  wine  fermented  in  them, 
they  are  still  "  new  bottles."  Now  the  word 
'  newness'  in  the  passage  before  us  is  derived 
from  the  latter  of  these  two  adjectives ;  so 
that  the  term  '  newness  of  life,'  does  not  refer 
to  the  recent  beginning  of  the  life  (however 
truly  it  might  be  called  new  on  that  account), 
but  to  the  changed  quality  or  character  of 
the  life  :  it  is  a  new  kind  of  life  that  they  are 
to  walk  in  who  have  been  '  baptized  into  Jesus 
Christ.'  [This  walking  'in  newness  of  life' 
is  used  here  as  the  antithesis  of  %uere  buried 
and  the  correlative  of  was  raised.  The  idea 
of  a  rising  or  being  raised  in  baptism  which 
is  implied  very  plainly  here  and  in  the  next 
verse,  is,  in  Col.  2:  12,  explicitly  stated:  we 
were  buried  with  Christ  in  the  (our)  baptism 
and  we  were  raised  with  Christ  in  the  baptism. 
The  Greek  for  baptism  {^iitri.aiJ.a)  does  not,  in 


itself,  any  more  than  immersion,  denote  or  ab- 
solutely require  an  emergence,  yet  both  allow 
of  it  (in  the  same  manner  as  burial  allows  of  a 
resurrection),  and  the  baptismal  or  immer- 
sion ordinance  requires  it,  as  otherwise  we 
could  not  thereafter  be  taught  to  observe  all 
the  Saviour's  commands,  nor  could  we  hence- 
forth in  this  world  "  walk  in  newness  of 
life."] 

Note  the  teaching  of  this  passage  as  to  the 
meaning  as  well  as  the  act  of  baptism.  It 
implies  in  all  cases  a  saving  union  with  Christ 
[representing  and]  obliging  to  a  new  and 
holy  life.  [It  is  maintained  by  some  that  as 
no  mention  is  made  of  the  element  water  in 
these  verses,  therefore  the  baptism  into  Christ 
and  the  burial  with  Christ  is  wholly  internal 
and  spiritual  and  has  no  reference  to  the  out- 
ward act.  But  granting  the  first  part  of  this 
inference  to  be  true,  the  second  does  not  fol- 
low, for  the  spiritual  may  derive  its  imagery 
from  the  outward  and  literal.  We  maintain, 
however,  the  literalness  of  the  baptism  and 
the  burial  (by  immersion),  not  of  course  ex- 
cluding from  them  a  spiritual  import.  In  the 
first  place,  the  phrases  into  repentance,  into 
name,  into  Christ,  into  his  death,  do  not  rep- 
resent proper  baptismal  elements.  To  sprinkle 
or  to  immerse  a  person  or  a  people  into  a  per- 
son or  into  a  name  is  an  incongruous  figure, 
an  impossible  transaction.  To  be  baptized 
unto  a  person  or  unto  his  name  denotes  an 
intimate  appertaining  to,  a  belonging  to,  that 
person  as  his  disciples  or  followers.  The  wide 
distinction  which  some  make  between  baptiz- 
ing into  a  person  and  into  his  name  is  not  war- 
ranted in  the  Scriptures.  They  both  denote 
substantially  the  same  thing — as,  "  baptized 
unto  Moses,"  "baptized  in  [into]  the  name  of 
Paul"  (thereby  becoming  followers  of  Moses 
or  followers  of  Paul),  and  as  Christian  writers 
generally  regard  this  latter  baptism  (into  a 
name)  as  external,  so  they  may  and  should 
regard  the  former  as  external.  Moreover,  as 
John's  baptism  "unto  repentance"  was  com- 
patible with  an  outward  ordinance,  an  im- 
mersion in  water,  so  a  baptism  into  Christ  and 
into  his  death  need  not  preclude  such  an  ordi- 
nance. When  we  read  in  our  religious  jour- 
nals that  such  and  such  persons  were  baptized 
into  such  a  church  or  into  its  fellowship,  does 
any  one  suppose  the  "church"  or  the  "fel- 
lowship" to  be  a  proper  baptismal  element  or 


Ch.  VI.] 


ROMANS. 


151 


5  For  if  we  have  been  planted  together  in  the  like-  |       i  united  with  him  by  the  likeness  of  his  death,  we 

1  Or,  united  tiiith  the  likenett  .  .  .  with  the  likene'S. 


tliat  it  ])recludcs  a  baptism  into  water?  But 
if  baptism  into  tlie  name  of  Christ  and  into 
Christ  is  external,  then  tiie  burial  effected  by 
tliat  baptism  is  likewise  external.  C<jnfirma- 
tory  of  this  view  is  the  remarkable  fact  that 
the  Scrii)tures  never  speak  of  a  burial  with 
Christ  save  in  connection  with  baptism. 
When  the  apostle  addressed  all  who  in  Rome 
had  given  themselves  up  to  Christ  by  and  in 
baptism,  the  Christians  there  could  not  have 
naturally  thought  of  anything  else  save  their 
outward  baptism  in  water  into  or  unto  the 
jianie  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  Furthermore,  to 
suppose  that  their  baptism  here  referred  to 
was  wholly  internal  and  spiritual  is  to  sup- 
pose that  all  the  baptized  believers  in  Rome 
were  spiritually  conformed  to  Christ  and 
wholly  dead  to  sin,  a  circumstance  which 
probablj'  was  not  true,  and  wliieh,  if  true, 
neitlier  Paul  nor  any  being  on  earth  could 
"know."  By  their  baptism  they  became 
professedly  and  engagedly  dead  to  sin,  and 
hence  Paul  subsequently  counsels  them  not 
to  "obey  the  lusts"  of  their  mortal  bodies, 
but  to  "•  reckon  themselves  dead  indeed  to 
sin,"  and  to  "yield  themselves  to  God  as  if 
alive  from  the  dead."  In  like  manner  he 
writes  to  the  Colossians  who  had  been  buried 
with  Christ  in  the  baptism  (Coi.  2: 12,  Revised  v.t- 
sion) :  "If  then  ye  were  raised  together  with 
Christ,  seek  the  things  that  are  above."  If 
tlieir  baptism  was  inward  and  spiritual,  how 
is  it  that  they  were  not  "  dead  with  Christ 
from  the  rudiments  of  the  world"  but  were 
still  "subject  to  [carnal]  ordinances?"  Had 
"all"  the  Corinthian  Christians  been  spiritu- 
ally and  really  baptized  "into  one  body," 
their  carnal  "strifes"  and  "divisions"  would 
not  have  been  so  flagrant  and  abundant. 
And  had  the  Galatian  Christians  been  spiritu- 
ally baptized  "into  Christ,"  they  would  "all" 
indeed  have  been  "one"  in  Christ  Jesus,  and 
we  never  should  have  heard  of  their  removal 
to  "another  gospel."     Yet  all  these  baptisms 


have  been  claimed  as  internal  and  spiritual. 
Of  course,  no  outward  rite  could  prove  abso- 
lute deadness  to  sin,  nor  was  such  a  proof 
necessary  for  the  apostle's  argument.  It  was 
enough  for  hiin  to  assure  his  Roman  brethren 
that  the  initial,  solemn  baptismal  rite,  to 
which  they  had  publicly  submitted,  imported 
deadness  to  sin,  and  that  hence  they  could 
not  consistently  "continue  in  sin."  Nor  is 
burial  in  baptism  proved  to  be  spiritual  from 
the  assertion  in  Col.  2:12,  "ye  were  raised 
through  the  faith,''  since  if  the  literal  rising 
were  to  "newness  of  life,"  it  may  well  be  said 
to  be  effected  through  faith  in  the  power  of 
God.  The  objection  that  the  pagan  Romans 
did  not  then  bury  but  burnt  their  dead  (how 
was  it  with  the  people  of  Colossse?)  does  not 
deserve  a  moment's  consideration.  Christ  our 
blessed  Lord  "was  buried"  (so  Paul  affirms 
in  1  Cor.  15  :  4,  though  some  writers,  who  hold 
this  baptism  to  be  a  spiritual  sprinkling,  deny 
his  literal  burial),  and  he  was  also  raised,  and 
we,  by  our  baptismal  or  immersion  rite,  are 
conjoined  with  him  both  in  an  outward  and 
in  a  spiritual  manner  in  the  liketiess  of  his 
death  and  in  the  likeness  of  his  resurrection.^ 
This  immersion-burial  theory  is  no  modern 
(Baptist)  fancj',  but  was  held  by  the  whole 
Christian  Church  in  early  times,  and  since 
then  by  Luther,  Zwingle,  Beza,  Bullinger, 
Tyndale,  Cranmer,  the  authors  of  the  "As- 
sembly's Notations"  (most  of  whom  wore 
members  of  the  Westminster  Assembly),  by 
Adam  Clarke  and  MacKnight,  and  even  by 
Baxter,  and  Weslej',  and  Doddridge.  For 
further  views  on  this  subject,  see  Dr.  Arnold's 
remarks  in  Appendix  C,  also  the  writer's 
"Studies  on  Baptism."] 

5.  For  if.  These  little  words  imply  that 
what  follows  in  this  verse  is  but  the  legitimate 
consequence  of  what  is  stated  in  the  first  clause 
of  the  preceding  verse,  or,  to  vary  the  form 
of  the  connection,  that  which  is  affirmed  in 
the  second  clause  as  the  definite  design  of  the 


1  It  will  be  noticed  that  the  words  'death '  and  'dead'  I  implied  in  his  morimur  in  baptixmale.  Hence  he  calls 
are  here  used  in  contrast  with  the  idea  of  resurrection,  baptism  a  symboluvi  vwrlis,  a  likeness  of  death.  We 
and  so  are  closely  connected  wiili  the  idea  of  burial,  doubt  whether  he  would  find  an  image  of  death  in 
Thus  TertuUian  says:  "  By  an  image  we rfie  in  baptism,  sprinkling.  Had  the  apostle  said,  burieti  with  Christ 
but  we  truly  rise  in  the  flesh,  as  did  also  Christ."  This  in  the  sprinkling,  would  not  every  one  have  felt  ao 
resurgimus,  or  rising,  is  antithetic  to  the  idea  of  a  burial  I  incongruity  in  the  figure? — (F.) 


152 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  VI. 


ness  of  his  death,  we  shall  be  also  in  the  likeness  of  his 
resurrection : 
6  Knowing  this,  that  our  old  man  is  crucified  with 


6  shall  be  also  by  the  likeness  of  h\s  resurrection  ;  know- 
ing this,  that  our  old  man  was  crucified  with  him, 


proposition  affirmed  in  the  first  clause  is  in 
this  verse  affirmed  as  the  sure  result  of  the 
truth  of  that  proposition.  We  have  been 
planted  together.  The  single  word  which 
is  translated  'planted  together'  is  a  difficult 
word  to  translate  into  English.  It  is  used 
nowhere  else  in  the  New  Testijment.  It  im- 
plies a  vital,  organic  union,  such  as  was  fabled 
to  exist  in  the  case  of  the  Centaur,  which  was, 
according  to  that  fable,  a  union  of  the  two 
natures  of  the  man  and  the  horse.  Grown 
together  would  be  as  nearly  a  literal  transla- 
tion as  can  well  be  given.  The  translation 
'planted  together'  no  doubt  originated  in  a 
mistaken  view  of  the  etymology  of  the  word, 
and  is  particularly  incongruous  with  the  last 
part  of  the  verse.  To  be  'planted  together' 
in  the  likeness  of  his  'resurrection'  would, 
indeed,  be  a  very  inapt  figure  of  speech. 
"If  we  have  become  united,"  as  the  Bible 
Union  Revision  has  it,  is  too  vague  and  weak. 
If  ive  have  become  vitally  conjoined  expresses 
the  true  idea,  but  is  something  of  a  paraphrase; 
in  the  likeness  of  his  death,  as  our  baptism 
imports,  the  resemblance  will  not  end  here, 
but  [the  strong  adversative,  dAAd]  we  shall 
be  also  — that  is,  vitally  conjoined  (with  the 
likeness)  of  his  resurrection,  [The  Revised 
Version  inserts  the  word  'him'  after  'united 
with,'  and  this,  perhaps,  gives  the  correct 
idea  (Godet),  though  De  Wette,  Meyer,  Al- 
ford,  Philjppi,  and  many  others  are  opposed 
to  the  insertion.  To  be  vitally  conjoined  to 
Christ  in  the  likeness  of  his  resurrection  is 
equivalent  to  walking  in  "newness  of  life." 
(ver. 4.)  The  future  tense,  shall  6e  conjoined, 
denotes  that  which  will  always  take  place. 
Dr.  Noyes  gives  this  ad  sensum  rendering: 
'"  For  if  we  have  been  made  completely  like 
liim  in  his  death,  we  shall  be  made  like  him 
in  his  resurrection  also."]  The  words  brack- 
eted (italicised  in  the  Common  Version)  are 
required  to  complete  the  scnse.^  See  similar 
elliptical  constructions  in  Matt.  5:20;  John 
6:36;  Heb.  12:24.  [It  has  been  objected  to 
the  immersion-burial  theory  that  it  makes 
two  ordinances  represent  mainly  the  same 
thing — namely,  the  death  of  Christ,  omitting 


all  reference  to  the  work  of  the  Spirit.  But 
this  is  quite  a  mistake.  The  theory  in  ques- 
tion makes  the  baptismal  rite  to  symbolize 
not  only  the  death  or  burial  of  Christ,  but  his 
resurrection;  not  only  our  dying  with  him, 
but  our  rising  with  him  henceforth  to  walk 
in  newness  of  life.  If,  now,  our  immersion 
in  water  may  denote,  much  better  than  a 
slight  sprinkling,  an  entire  cleansing  from 
sin  and  a  rising  to  a  new  life,  it  certainly  may 
well  symbolize  the  "washing  of  regeneration 
and  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Spirit."] 

6.  "What  in  the  preceding  verses  is  pre- 
sented as  a  matter  of  doctrine  is  here  pre- 
sented as  a  matter  of  experience.  Knowing 
this— because  we  know  this,  because  we  shall 
remember  and  feel  this.  That  our  old  man 
is  crucified  with  him.  'Our  old  man': 
the  adjective  old  [n-aAaibj,  Latin  vetus,  not 
dpxaios,  ancient,  priscus]  is  the  same  that  is 
used  in  reference  to  the  wine  bottles  in  our 
Lord's  figure  :  see  note  on  neivness  of  life, 
ver.  4.  It  relates  to  character,  not  to  age. 
When  age  is  referred  to,  a  ditferent  Greek 
adjective  (n-peCT^Onj?)  is  used,  as  in  Luke  1  : 
18;  Titus  2:2;  PhileTn^  9.  [Paul  here  first 
makes  mention  of  '  the  old  man  '  (opposed  to 
the  "new  man."  (Eph. 4:  24;  coi.s;  lo)  ;  or,  in 
one  view,  to  the  "inward  man"  (7;  2a;  Eph. 
3:16)),  by  which  he  means,  as  Meyer  says, 
"  our  personality  in  its  entire  sinful  condition 
before  regeneration."  (John  3:  3.)  Compare 
Eph.  4  :  22 ;  Col.  3 :  9.  The  idea  is  Christian 
and  not  Jewish.]  'Is  crucified  with  him  '  : 
rather,  'was,'  since  the  verb  is  in  the  ;)as< 
tense.  [Meyer  thinks  the  verb,  toas  crucified, 
refers  to  the  time  "when  we  were  baptized, 
and  thereby  transplanted  into  the  fellowship 
of  death."  Lange  calls  this  "  rather  a  super- 
ficial view,"  and  thinks  our  crucifixion  took 
place  potentially  when  Christ  for  us  was 
nailed  to  the  cross.  Compare?:  4.  But  though 
the  apostle  does  not  affirm  that  "we"  were 
crucified  in  the  baptism,  yet  we  see  not  why 
the  death  represented  by  that  baptism  may 
not  be  termed  a  crucifixion  of  the  old  man 
and  an  abolishing  or  bringing  to  nought  of 
the  body  of  sin.     'Crucified':    "How  inter- 


1  So  Meyer  versus  De  Wette  and  others,  who  make  the  1  govern  the  genitive, 
adjective  here,  though  compounded  with  (tvv,  directly  I  — (F.) 


Compare  8 :  29 ;  Buttmann,  p.  169. 


Ch.  VI.] 


ROMANS. 


153 


Aim,  that  the  body  of  sin  might  be  destroyed,  that 
heiicelurth  we  should  not  serve  sin. 
7  For  he  that  is  dead  is  freed  from  sin. 


that  the  body  of  sin  might  be  done  away,  that  so  we 

7  should  no  longer  be  in  bondage  to  sin";  for  he  that 

8  bath  died  is  i  justified  from  siu.     But  it'  we  died  with 


1  Or.  released. 


estinff  and  impressive  it  is  to  regard  the  Chris- 
tian as,  in  respect  to  his  former  inclination, 
utidergoing  a  death,  a  crucifixion  in  company 
with  his  Lord!"  (Kipley.)  "The  image 
of  tlie  Christian,  as  one  with  Christ,  is  still 
carried  on.  Alan  falls  asunder  into  two  parts, 
corresponding  to  the  two  divisions  of  Christ's 
life,  and  leaves  one  of  those  parts  httnging 
upon  the  cross."  (Jovvett. )  Compare  Gal. 
2:  20.  "  I  have  been  crucified  with  Christ."] 
That  the  body  of  sin.  The  body  which 
belongs  to  and  serves  sin:  compare  ver.  12, 
13;  7:  23,  24;  8:  13;  or,  perhaps,  sin  person- 
ified, as  having  a  body.  See  Col.  2 :  11.  [Sin 
uses  and  even  rules  the  body,  but  the  princi- 
ple of  "sin  lies  not  in  the  body  or  flesh  even, 
but  in  the  will."  (DeWette.)  Of  course,  the 
body  is  not  to  be  rendered  inactive  (dpYos), 
only  so  far  as  the  service  of  sin  is  concerned. 
Philippi,  Hodge,  Stuart,  suppose  sin  to  be 
here  persotiified.  The  metaphor  in  crucified 
is  more  perfectly  carried  out  by  using  the 
term  body.  (Boise.)  ]  l>Iight  be  destroyed. 
The  verb  translated  'might  be  destroyed'  is 
one  very  frequetitiy  used  by  Paul,  and  vari- 
ously translated  in  different  places.  It  is  the 
same  which  is  translated  make  without  effect, 
and  make  of  none  effect,  in  3:  3  (see  notes), 
and  4:  W,  destroy,  in  1  Cor.  6:  13;  15:  26; 
2  Thess.  2:  8;  Heb.  2:  14;  and  abolish,  in  2 
Cor.  3  :  13;  Eph.  2:  15:  2  Tim.  1  :  10.  It  is 
used  between  twenty-five  and  thirty  times, 
but  only  once  out  of  Paul's  epistles  (Luke 
13:  7,  translated,  cumbereth),  unless  Heb.  2: 
14  be  a  second  exception.  That  henceforth 
we  sh«>uld  not  serve  sin.  That  we  should 
no  longer  .nerve  sin  :  that  the  bod3"  should  no 
longer  be  the  slave,  under  the  dominion  of 
sin.' 

As   Christ's  death   on   account  of  sin  was 
never  to  be  repeated  (vcr.  7-10),  so  the  believer 


should  regard  his  own  separation  from  sin  as 

final.       (Ver.  II-H.) 

7.  For  he  that  is  dead  is  freed  from 
sin.  A  literal  translation  of  this  verse  would 
be,  '  he  that  died  has  been  justified  from  sin'  ; 
see  note  on  6:  15.  [Godet  saj's:  "is  of  right 
freed  from  sin."  The  more  exact  idea  of  the 
apostle,  we  think,  is  this;  that  one  who  has 
died  with  Christ  and  put  off  the  body  of  sin, 
has  been  freed  from  sin's  condemning  power.] 
The  verb  which  we  translate  '  has  been  justi- 
fied' is  used  about  forty  times  io  the  New 
Testament  (thirteen  times  in  this  Epistle)  and 
is  uniformly  translated  to  justify  in  every 
other  place. ■■*  Christ  may  properly  be  said  to 
have  heen  justified  from,  sin  wlien,  after  having 
died  on  account  of  sin,  he  was  raised  to  the 
right  hand  of  God,  "separated  (so  should  the 
translation  be)  from  sinners,  and  made  higher 
than  the  heavens."  (Heb.7:26.)  Compare  also 
John  16  :  8,  10.  [The  suggestion  of  Dr. 
Arnold  that  this  verse  relates  to  Christ  has 
much  in  its  favor,  but  as  it  is  adopted  by  very 
few  if  any  other  commentators,  it  seems  proper 
to  mention  two  or  three  current  interpreta- 
tions. 1.  It  is  supposed  to  be  a  general  and 
popular  statement,  to  the  effect  that,  when  a 
man  is  dead,  he  is  no  longer  held  to  the  law 
which  he  previously  broke— a  kind  of  legal 
maxim;  'having  died  he  has  been  justified 
(acquitted)  from  sin.'  And  this  legal  maxim 
is  used  to  illustrate  the  state  of  one  who,  at 
regeneration,  died  to  the  law  and  its  penalty, 
and  entered  into  a  new  life.  2.  'He  that  is 
dead  is  freed  from  sin,'  because  by  death  he  is 
freed  from  the  body  which  is  the  seat  of  sin. 
This,  according  to  Philippi  and  Schaff,  is 
Meyer's  view  and  must  be  rejected,  because 
it  "rests  upon  an  anthropology  as  unbiblical 
as  it  is  un-Pauline."  3.  'He  that  is  dead  to 
sin   is  freed   from   the  slavery  of  sin.'     "It 


'The  infinitive  sentence,  'that  we  should  not  serve 
sin,'  may,  in  Winer's  opinion,  be  regarded  as  a  noun 
in  the  genitive,  dependent  on  the  verb,  mifiht  he  de- 
stroyed, as  being  a  verb  which  denotes  separation.  Butt- 
raann  makes  its  verbal  nature  and  force  more  promi- 
nent, and  regards  it  as  an  independent  telle  clause  as 
if  it  began  with  u'a  or  ojtcos.  "The  application  here 
made  of  the  special   kind  of  death   suffered  by  our 


Saviour  to  the  spiritual  death  of  the  old  man  is  the 
more  eiuphatic  inasmuch  us  the  former  is  peculiarly 
accompanied  with  pain,  and  resembles  the  way  in 
which  the  love  of  sin  is  actually  extinguished  in  the 
Christian."  (Tholuck.)— (F.) 

2  Rev.  22:  11  is  not  regarded  as  an  exception,  be- 
cause this  verb  is  not  regarded  as  the  true  reading  in 
that  place. 


154 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  VI. 


8  Now  if  we  be  dead  with  Christ,  we  beheve  that  we 
shall  also  live  witli  liim  : 

9  Knowing  that  Christ  being  raised  from  the  dead 
dietb  no  uiore  ;  death  hath  no  more  dominion  over 
him. 

10  For  in  that  he  died,  he  died  unto  sin  once:  but  in 
that  he  liveth,  he  liveth  unto  God. 


Christ,  we  believe  that  we  shall  also  live  with  him; 

9  knowing  that  Christ  being  raised  from  the  dead  dielh 

no  more ;  death  no  more  hath  dominion  over  him. 

10  For  1  the  death  that  he  died,  heditd  unto  sin  2 once: 


1  Or,  in  that 2  Gr.  once  for  all. 


follows  naturally  from  what  precedes  that 
here  is  meant  the  inner,  spiritual  death,  carried 
into  effect  in  helieving  fellowship  with  Christ's 
death,  by  which,  as  by  death  in  general,  all 
former  relations  and  connections  are  dissolved, 
and  therefore  the  connection  with  sin,  which 
thus  loses  its  old  authority  and  power  over 
man.  But  if  man  is  absolved  from  sin,  he 
ought  not  again  to  hold  converse  with  it" 
(Philippi,  and  similarly  Bengel,  Olshausen, 
De  Wette,  Tholuck,  and  others).  But  the 
verb  used  signifies  "has  been  justified  or  ac- 
quitted, not  has  been  freed — that  is,  set  free 
from  the  penalty  rather  than  the  power  of 
sin.  4.  'He  that  is  dead  with  Christ^ — that 
is,  brought  in  connection  with  his  atoning 
death,  '  is  freed  from  guilt  and  punishment  of 
sin  by  justification.'  (So  Scott,  Mac  Knight, 
Hodge.)  This  seems  to  be  the  best  view,  if 
the  verse  does  not  refer  to  Christ.  (A.  H.)  ] 
8.  Now  if  we  be  dead  for,  died)  with 
Christ  (compare  2  Cor.  5:  14,  Kevised  Ver- 
sion, "one  died  for  all,  therefore  all  died"). 
[This  dying  with  Christ  (to  sin,  compare  ver. 
10,  11)  serves  to  explain  the  preceding  verse: 
'  he  that  hath  died  is  justified  from  sin'  (Re- 
vised Version) — that  is,  sin  cannot  be  his  con- 
demnation.] We  believe  that  we  shall  also 
live  with  him.i  [Compare  2  Tim.  2:  11.] 
This  is  not  merely  an  exhortation — 'we  ought,' 
not  merely  a  prediction — 'we  shall,'  but  a 
matter  of  experience — '  we  believe  that  we 
shall'  participate  in  his  new  and  deathless 
life,  as  we  have  participated  in  his  death. 
This  involves,  of  course,  an  ultimate  partici- 
pation in  his  heavenly  life  in  glory,  [a  being 


forever  with  the  Lord,  which  seems  to  be 
Paul's  idea  of  heaven,  (i  Thesa.  4:  n.)  ]  But 
we  are  not  to  infer,  from  the  future  tense, 
'shall  live  with  him,'  that  this  glorified  life  is 
principally'  intended;  for  the  future  tense  is 
to  be  understood,  as  in  in  ver.  5,  of  the  new 
Christian  life  on  earth,  as  explained  in  ver.  6, 
11-13,  [or  as  Meyer  terms  it,  "the  ethical 
participation  in  the  new  everlasting  life  of 
Christ.''] 

9.  Knowing  (because  we  know)  that  Christ 
being:  {liaving  been)  raised  from  the  dead 
dieth  no  more.  He  died,  not  that  he  might 
remain  dead,  but  that  he  might  be  forever 
siiperio7^  to  death. 2  And  so  we,  who  died  to 
sin  once  for  all,  must  not  again  come  under  its 
dominion.  Death  hath  no  more  dominion 
over  him.  It  seemed  to  have  a  transient 
dominion  over  him,  but  really  it  never  had. 

(John  10:  17,18;  2:  19:  Matt.  26:  53;  Acts  2 :  24.)         [In    the 

last  clause,  'him,'  in  the  genitive,  is  governed 
by  the  verb,  on  the  principle  that  verbs  of 
ruling  take  the  genitive  as  the  case  of  depend- 
ence. The  verb,  derived  from  a  noun,  could 
be  resolved  thus:  death  is  lord  of  him  no 
longer.     Compare  7:  1;  14:  9.] 

10.  For  in  that  he  died.  There  is  a 
peculiar  and  unusual  ellipsis  in  the  Greek 
of  this  verse.  Literally  translated  it  would 
read — lohat  he  died  and  what  he  liveth.^  Our 
translators,  to  make  it  more  intelligible,  in- 
serted the  preposition  in  and  changed  the 
relative  into  the  demonstrative.  In  a  similar 
case — I  think  the  only  similar  one  (oai.  2:20) — 
they  supplied  the  ellipsis  in  a  diflPerent  way, 
by  inserting  a  noun  corresponding  to  the  verb 


1  '%vv  (with),  as  distinguished  from  jterd,  indicates  a 
more  intimate  union,  coherence  rather  than  co-exist- 
ence. (Winer,  391.)  "  Siiv  with  dative,  in  company 
with;  /u.«Ta  with  gQnili'ie,  participating  with."  (Boise.) 
-(F.) 

2  Paul  elsewhere  speaks  of  Christ  as  "  the  first  born 
from  the  dead,"  the  "  first  fruits  of  them  that  slept." 
Col.  1  -.  18;  1  Cor.  15:  20.  EUicott  on  the  former  pass- 
age says:  "  Others  had  been  translated  or  had  risen  to 
die  again.  He  had  risen  with  glorified  humanity  to 
die  no  more :  hence  he  is  not  called  simply  '  the  first 


that  rose,'  but  with  a  note  of  generation,  "first  born 
from  the  dead."  Query :  Will  any  one  dare  to  affirm 
that  Christ  was  unconscious  while  he  "slept "in  the 
tomb,  and  that  during  all  that  time  the  world  had  vir- 
tually no  Saviour?  Manifestly,  his  sleeping  in  death 
was  compatible  with  the  enjoyment  of  the  Paradise  of 
bliss.     (Luke  23:  43.)— (F.) 

3  This  would  be  called  the  cognate  accusative,  In- 
stead of  this  we  may,  as  Prof.  Boise  remarks,  regard 
the  relative  as  in  the  accusative  of  specification,  equiva- 
lent as  to  what,  as  to  the  fad  that.—(F.) 


Ch.  VI.] 


ROMANS. 


155 


11  Likewise  reckon  ye  also  yourselves  to  be  dead 
indeed  unto  siu,  but  alive  unto  (jod  through  Jesus 
(.iirist  our  Lord. 


but  Uhe  life  that  he  liveth,  he  liveth   unto  God. 
11  Eveu  so  rtckou  ye  also  yourselves  to  be  dead  uulo 
sin,  but  alive  .unto  God  in  Christ  Jesus. 


in  place  of  the  relative— "</ie  life  which  I 
now  live"  (for  what  I  now  live).  Conform- 
ing the  passage  now  before  us  with  the  one 
in  Galatians,  which  seems  to  us  the  better 
way  of  supplying  the  ellipsis,  we  should  read 
—for  the  death  that  he  died,  he  died  unto 
sin  once  ;  but  the  life  that  he  liveth,  he 
liveth  niito  God.  The  'for'  gives  the ;:>roo/ 
of  the  preceding:  Christ  dieth  no  more;  death 
hatli  no  more  dominion  over  him;  'for'  he 
died  to  sin  once  for  all,  and  lives  unio  God 
and  with  God  among  the  immortals  where 
they  die  no  more.  (Luke  20 :  36;  Rev.  21:4.)  'He 
died  unto  sin' — that  is,  he  had  no  more  to  do 
with  it,  either  as  tempting  and  persecuting 
him,  or  as  annoying  and  grieving  him  by  its 
hateful  presence.  Both  the  expressions  'he 
died  unto  sin,'  '  he  liveth  unto  God  '  seem  to 
be  used  on  account  of  the  analogy;  they  are 
strictly  applicable  to  us,  only  in  a  qualified 
sense  to  Christ.  ["It  may  in  a  certain  degree 
bo  affirmed  tiiat  upon  this  earth  our  Saviour 
lived  both  to  us  and  to  his  God,  inasmuch  as 
it  was  for  our  sakes  that  he  lived  in  a  certain 
connection  with  evil,  sin,  death,  and  Satan. 
Tills  connection  is  now  dissolved,  and  God  is 
tlie  only  scope  of  his  life."  (Justinianus,  as 
quoted  by  Tholuck.)  Olshausen  observes  on 
this  passage  that  "Christ  died  once  for  sin — 
thut  is,  to  extirpate  it;  and  lives  eternally 
for  God— that  is,  to  further  righteousness." 
Philippi  and  Godet  would  make  our  Lord's 
dying  to  sin  refer  to  his  expiating  and  de- 
stroying it  by  his  death.  Meyer  says:  "He 
died  to  its  power,''  and  in  a  similar  way  we 
are  to  deem  ourselves  dead  to  it.  (ver.  11.)] 
'Once.'  It  is  important  to  notice  the  import  of 
the  word ;  it  means  here  once  for  all.  It  is 
opposed,  not  only  to  any  actual  repetition  of 
his  bloody  sacrifice  on  the  cross,  but  also  to 
any  virtual  repetition  of  it  in  the  mass,  which 
professes,  though  an  unbloody  sacrifice,  to 
have  a  like  propitiatory  efficao3^  The  same 
adverb   is   used   in    Heb.  10  :  10,  where   it  is 


translated  "once  for  all."  This  expression  is, 
however,  liable  to  be  misunderstood,  as  if /or 
all  meant  for  all  persons,  in  distinction  from 
the  limitation  of  the  design  of  his  death  to 
some  persons ;  whereas  it  means  for  a/^  time, 
in  distinction  from  any  rrpetition  of  his  deati). 
And  07ice  has  the  same  meaning  in  Heb.  7  :  27; 
9: 12,  where,  as  in  the  verse  under  considera- 
tion, the  exi)lanatory /o?-  all  was  not  added  by 
the  translators.  The  original  expression  is 
precisely  the  same  in  all  these  four  places. 
[It  may  be  well  for  the  reader  to  compare 
Jude  (ver.  3)  with  the  passages  cited  by  Dr. 
Arnold,  for  "the  faith  which  was  once  deliv- 
ered to  the  saints"  really  means  "the  faith 
which  was  delivered  once/ora^^  to  the  saints," 
and  this  description  of  "the  faith"  appears  to 
forbid  the  hope  of  any  further  revelation  of 
Christian  truth.  See  note  on  this  passage. 
(A.  H.)] 

11.  Likewise.  So  also— that  is,  conform- 
ably to  Ciirist — reckon  ye  (imperative) 
yourselves  to  be  dead  indeed  unto  sin 
(immovable  by  it,  insensible  to  it),'  but  alive 
(or,  livincj,  full  of  energy  and  power)  unto 
God  through  (rather,  iii)  Jesus  Christ  our 
Lord — that  is,  by  virtue  of  your  miion  with 
him  [or,  as  Winer  has  it,  "in  soul-nourishing 
fellowship  with  Christ."  Meyer  joins  the 
words  in  Christ  Jesus  to  both  clauses,  dead 
and  living,  De  Wette  only  to  the  latter.  The 
most  important  MSS.  omit  the  words  'to  be' 
and  'our  Lord.']  Not  his  mediatorship,  but 
his  headship,  is  the  prominent  thought  here.2 
[In  regard  to  this  mj-stical  union  of  believers 
with  and  in  Christ,  the  Apostles  John  and 
Paul  are  both  at  one.  According  to  their 
teachings,  ^^ believers  are  in  Christ,  so  as  to 
be  partakers  in  all  that  he  does,  and  has,  and 
is.  They  died  with  him,  and  rose  with  him, 
and  live  with  him,  and  in  him  are  seated  in 
heavenly  places.  "When  the  eye  of  God  looks 
on  them,  they  are  found  in  Christ,  and  there 
is  no  condemnation  to  those  that  are  in  him, 


1  Chalmers  gives  even  to  these  phrases  a  "forensic 
meaning."  Only  as  we  are  in  Clirist,  and  clothed  with 
his  righteousness  and  filled  witli  his  Spirit,  can  we 
truly  reckon  ours  Ives  dead  to  sin  and  alive  to  God. 
lion-  forcel'ul  the  figure — dead  to  sin  I    We  have  all  seen 


how  insensible  is  the  dead  body  to  all  that  is  going  on 
around  it.    It  is  moved  by  no  tears  or  wailings  of  grief, 
no  voice  of  affection,  no  music  of  earth,  no  thunders  of 
the  sky.    It  is  dmd  to  the  world. — (F.) 
2  See  Appendix  C. 


156 


ROMANS. 


[Cn.  VI. 


12  Let  not  sin  therefore  reign  in  your  mortal  body,  j  12      Let  not  sin  therefore  reign  in  your  mortal  body, 
that  ye  should  obey  it  in  the  lusts  thereof.  la  that  ye  should  obey  the  lusts  thereof:  neither  present 

13  Neither  yield  yc  your  members  (w  instruments  of  your  members  unto  sin  as  i  instruments  of  unright- 
uurighieousuess  unto  sin:   but  yield  yourselves  unto  |       eousness;  but  present  yourselves  unto  God,  as  alive 

1  Or,  iveapons. 


and  they  are  righteous  in  his  righteousness 
and  loved  with  the  love  vvliicli  rests  on  him, 
and  are  sons  of  God  in  his'  sonship  and  heirs 
with  him  of  liis  inheritanee,  and  are  soon  to 
be  glorified  with  him  in  his  glory."  (Ber- 
nard's "Progress  of  Doctrine,"  p.  181. )' 
Paul's  watchwords  are  "through  Christ," 
"  in  Christ,"  "  for  Christ,"  "  with  Christ."] 

"We  should  die  as  truly  to  sin  as  he  died 
for  sin,  and  live  as  truly  imto  God  as  he  lives 
with  God."  (Adam  Clarke.)  Compare  Gal. 
2  :  19 ;  1  Peter  2  :  24. 

12.  Let  not  sin  therefore  reign  [continue 
to  reign,  the  verb  being  in  the  present  tense]. 
Observe  how  sin  is  per' sonified  here  as  reign- 
ing and  being  obeyed.  This  shows  that  it  is 
regarded  as  &  principle,  and  not  merely  as  an 
act,  for  an  act,  whether  external  or  internal, 
whether  mechanical  or  mental,  could  not 
consistently  be  so  personified.  'Sin,'  as  the 
word  is  used  here  and  in  the  following  chap- 
ter, has  been  well  defined  as  "a  want  of  con- 
formity to  the  law  of  God,  whether  in  act, 
habit,  or  state."  (Inconvenientia  cum  lege 
divina  aut  actus,  aut  habitus,  aut  status. )  '  Let 
not  sin  therefore  reign,'  since  it  has  been  de- 
posed. ["He  does  not  say,  let  not  the  flesh 
live,  neither  act,  but  let  not  sin  reign.  .  .  . 
And  surely  it  would  be  absurd  for  those  who 
are  bound  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven  to  take 
sin  for  a  queen  and  to  choose  to  be  her  captives 
when  called  to  reign  along  with  Christ." 
(Chrysostom.)]  In  your  mortal  body. 
"Why  does  he  add  'mortal'  here?  To  keep 
in  view  the  connection  between  sin  and  death, 
partly,  perhaps,  as  an  enforcement  of  the 
exhortation,  because  the  remembrance  of  the 
deadly  consequence  of  sin  would  be  a  pow- 
erful dissuasive  from  it,  but  principally  on 


account  of  the  antithesis,  the  life  with  Christ, 
which  is  exempt  from  death.  [This  mortal 
body,  or  body  of  sin  and  death,  itself  made 
mortal  by  reason  of  sin  (called  in  Col.  2 :  11 
and  elsewhere  "body  of  the  sins  of  flesh''), 
being  "organized  flesh"  (Cremer),  is  related 
to  sin  by  the  flesh  composing  it  and  by  the 
soul  inhabiting  it,  and  is  consequently  subject 
to  death  as  the  penalty  of  sin.  Yet  even  this 
body  may  be  made  a  temple  of  the  indwelling 
Holy  Spirit.  (icor.6;i9.)  Tholuck  observes 
that  the  adjective  mortal  "is  doubtless  added 
— as  Chr3'sostom,  Grotius,  and  others  remark 
— to  encourage  the  Christian,  by  pointing  his 
thoughts  to  that  never-ending  glory  into 
which  this  frail  tabernacle  shall  one  day  be 
transformed."]  That  ye  should  obey  it  in 
the  lusts  theredf.  [This  is  the  reading  of 
K  A  B  C  *  and  early  versions,  while  D  E  F  G 
read  it  alone.]  The  last  word  ('thereof') 
refers  to  the  body.  A  large  part  of  sin  con- 
sists in,  or  arises  from,  yielding  to  the  desires 
and  appetites  of  the  body.  "The  bodily  appe- 
tites are  the  fuel;  sin  is  the  fire."  (Bengel.) 
[The  gratifying  of  our  sensual  appetites  and 
desires  yields  a  certain  sort  of  pleasure,  but 
sin's  pleasures  are  full  often  followed  by  tears, 
and 

Sin's  froth  that  foams  for  an  hour. 
Leaves  dregs  that  are  tasted  for  years.] 

13.  Neither   yield    ye    your    members.'' 

[The  Revisers,  by  connecting  'sin'  with  'mem- 
bers,' vary  the  order  of  the  original  but  give 
clearness  to  its  meaning.]  '  Nor  render  your 
members  unto  sin '  (as  a  soldier  renders  his 
service  to  his  commander  or  a  subject  to  his 
sovereign)  as  instruments  (literally,  loeap- 
ons)  of  unrighteousness  (for  the  promotion 
of  unrighteousness)  ;  but  yield  yourselves 


1  Bernard  thus  beautifully  describes  the  progress  of 
doctrine  on  this  one  line  from  the  gospels  to  the  epis- 
tles: "  In  the  Gospels  we  have  .stood  like  men  who  watch 
the  rising  of  some  great  edifice,  and  who  grow  familiar 
with  the  outline  and  details  of  its  exterior  aspect.  In 
the  preaching  of  the  Acts,  we  have  seen  the  doors 
thrown  open  and  joined  the  men  who  flock  into  it  as 
their  refuge  and  their  home.  In  the  Epistles  we  are 
actually  within  it,  sheltered  by  its  roof,  encompassed 


by  its  walls;  we  pass,  as  it  were,  from  chamber  to 
chamber,  beholding  the  extent  of  its  internal  arrange- 
nieuts  and  the  abundance  of  all  things  provided  for  our 
use.    We  are  here  '  in  Christ  Jesus '  "  (p.  182).— (F.) 

2  On  tlie  use  of  the  negative  ft-v  with  imperatives 
rather  than  ov,  see  Winer,  g  55.  And  as  to  the  usage 
of  correlative  particles,  observe  how  iJi-qSi  here  follows 
n'r)  as  oiiSe  follows  ou  in  2  :  28.— (F.) 


Ch.  VI.] 


ROMANS. 


157 


Gcxi,  as  those  that  are  alive  from  the  dead,  and  your 
members  a.t  iiislniments  ol  rigluuousiiess  unto  (jod. 

14  For  sin  shall  not  have  dominion  over  you  :  for  ye 
are  not  under  the  law,  but  under  grace. 

If)  What  then?  shall  we  sin,  because  we  are  not 
under  the  law,  but  under  grace?    God  forbid. 


from  the  dead,  and  your  luembers  a.s  i  instruments 
14  of  righteousness  uiito(iod.     For  siu  shall  not  have 

dominion  over  you:  lor  ye  are  not  under  law,  but 

under  grace. 
1.5      What  then?  shall  we  siu,  because  we  are  not  under 
16  law,  but  under  grace?  God  forbid.   Know  ye  not,  that 


1  Or,  weapona. 


to  God,  as  those  that  are  alive  from  the 
dead,  and  your  members  as  instruments 
of  righteousness  unto  God.  Compare  12:1. 
[Tlie  reflexive  pronoun  translated  'yourselves' 
is  ])ri>per] y  in  the  third  person,  but  is  here  and 
elsewhere  used  for  the  second.  'Alive  from 
the  dead.'  Mej'er  regards  these  dead  as  those 
who  died  with  Christ  to  sin.  Prof.  Crenier 
also  explains  the  term  as  used  here  by  a  refer- 
ence to  vcr.  8,  10,  11,  and  tliinks  that  the 
Greek  word  for  'dead'  (fexpos)  is  never  to  be 
understood  of  "spiritual  death,"  but  that  it 
signifies  rather  "the  state  of  those  whose  life 
is  appointed  to  death  as  t  le  punishment  of 
sin."  In  his  view,  '"dead  (in)  trespasses  and 
sins"  would  mean — doomed  to  death  by  rea- 
son of  trespasses,  dead  through  your  trespasses, 
as  in  the  Revised  Version,  Eph.  2:1;  Col. 
2:13.  Piiilippi  and  Godet,  with  most  com- 
mentators, think  of  these  'dead'  as  the  dead 
in  sin.  There  certainly  does  not  appear  to 
be  any  proper  reaiirrection  change  in  passing 
from  a  death  to  sin  to  a  living  unto  God,  since 
these  are  virtually  identical.  The  "Bible 
Commentary"  gives  the  force  of  the  present 
and  aorist  tenses  thus:  "Do  not  go  on  putting 
your  members  at  sin's  disposal,  but  once  for 
all  present  (i-':i)  yourselves  both  body  and 
soul  unto  God."*  The  word  rendered  'instru- 
ments' (favored  by  De  Wette)  always  means 
•weapons  in  the  New  Testament.  (Meyer.) 
Thej'  are,  properly,  military  weapons  of  the 
heavier  sort.  Boise:  "  Present  your  members 
as  heavy  armor  of  righteousness  to  God." 

The  apostle  dc))icts  life  as  a  contest  and  fight 
whether  for  sin  or  rigliteousness.  "St.  Paul," 
sa3's  Bishop  "Wordsworth,  "loves  military 
mota))h(>rs."  'Righteousness'  (Sutaioo-uvr;)  re- 
garded as  "  conformity  to  the  standard"  is 
here  very  properly  opposed  to  'sin'  (i/uapWo), 
which  is  a  missing  of  the  mark.  (Cremer.)  A 
failing  to  hit  the  mark.  (Thayer.)] 


14.  This  verse  seems  to  be  of  the  nature  of 
an  assurance  [in  which  there  lies  a  very  siueet 
consolation  (Melanchthoii)],  <'onfirming  (for) 
the  possibility  of  the  surrender  to  God  com- 
manded above.  At  the  same  time  it  serves  as 
a  transition  to  tlie  new  phase  of  the  argument, 
presented  in  the  verses  that  follow.  See  analy- 
sis at  the  beginning  of  the  chapter.  [Have 
dominion.  Death  no  longer  lords  it  over 
Christ,  and  sin  shall  no  longer  lord  it  over 
you.  It  shall  not  be  your  master,  for  ye  are 
not  in  bondage  to  the  law,  which  is  the  power 
of  sin,  but  ye  are  subject  to  grace,  are  under 
the  control  of  grace.  "  Grace  not  only  washes 
away  sins,  but  keeps  us  from  sinning."] 

15.  What  then  shall  we  say?  (compare 
ver.  1)  or 'what  then  '  is  the  inference?  May  we 
sin,  subjunctive  aorist  [denoting  some  special 
act  of  sin  rather  than  a  habit  of  sinning],  not 
future  indicative,  is  the  true  reading.  See  on 
ver.  1.  How  does  this  verse  differ  from  ver.  1  ? 
There  it  is  May  we  ]:)ersist  in  sin,  in  order 
that  grace  maj'  abound  ?  Here  it  is  Maj'  we 
feel  at  liberty  to  sin,  because  we  are  not  under 
the  law,  but  under  grace?  The  first  is  a 
question  of  positive  and  permanent  action. 
The  second  is  an  appeal  to  the  Christian's 
moral  sense.  The  answer  to  both  is  the  same: 
let  it  not  be.  The  inference  is  indignantly  repu- 
diated. [""We  are  not  only  not  to  'continue  in 
sin,'  buteverysingleactofsin  istobeavoided." 
(Boise.)  The  grace  of  our  God  must  not 
be  turned  into  lasciviousness.  "  "We  were 
freed  from  the  law  not  that  we  might  hand 
over  the  sovereignty  to  the  flesh,  but  that  we 
might  henceforth  live  unto  God  and  fulfill  his 
will,  only  no  longer  on  the  ground  of  the 
outer  requirement  of  the  law,  but  at  the  inner 
instigation  of  the  Spirit.  Materially  nothing 
else  is  to  be  aimed  at  by  means  of  the  latter 
than  the  former;  for  the  love  which  the  Spirit 
works  is  the  fulfilling  of  the  law."    (Weiss  on 


'  Winer  (p.  313)  says:  "The  present  imperatiTe  de- 
notes an  action  already  begun  and  to  be  continued,  or 
one  that  is  permanent  and  frequently  recurring,"  while 
the  aorist  imperative  "denotes  an  action  that  is  either 
transient  and  instantaneous  or  to  be  undertaken  but 


once.  .  .  .  The  aorist  imperative  is  in  general  more 
forcible  and  stringent  than  the  present."  Gramma- 
rians tell  us  that  the  aorist,  though  a  past  tense,  rarely 
denotes  past  time  except  in  the  indicative  and  parti- 
ciple.—(F.) 


158 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  VI. 


16  Know  yc  not,  that  to  whom  ye  yield  yourselves 
servants  to  obey,  his  servants  ye  are  to  whom  ye  obey : 
whether  of  siu  unto  death,  or  of  obedience  unto  right- 
eousness? 

17  But  God  be  thanked,  that  ye  were  the  servants  of 
sin,  but  ye  have  obeyed  from  the  heart  that  form  of 
doctrine  which  was  delivered  you. 


to  whom  ye  present  yourselves a«  i  servants  unto  obe- 
dience, his  1  servants  ye  are  whom  ye  obey  ;  whether 
of  sin  unto  death,  or  of  obedience  unto  rigliteous- 
17  ness?  But  thanks  be  to  God,  ^that,  whereas  ye  were 
'  servants  ot  sin  ye  became  obedient  from  the  heart 
to  that  "iform  of  teaching  whereunto  ye  were  deliv- 


l  Gv.  bondservants 2  Or,  that  ye  were  .  .  .  hutyebecame '6  Or,  pattern. 


Paul's  doctrine  of  "Freedom  from  the  Law.")] 
"  With  the  ungodly,  not  to  be  under  the  law 
means,  not  to  be  afraid  to  do  whatever  we 
please,  and  to  be  under  grace  means  to  be 
safe  from  damnation."     (Beza.) 

16.  Know  ye  not.  This  is  an  appeal  to 
common  sense,  [and  hence  the  question  re- 
quires no  expressed  answer.  In  negative  inter- 
rogative sentences  with  not  (ou),  an  affirmative 
answer  is  presumed.]  Ye  are  the  servants 
either  of  God  or  of  sin ;  there  is  no  third  sup- 
position. The  yielding  of  ourselves  servants 
for  obedience  to  anyone  implies  the  serving — 
tlie  being  in  reality  the  servants  of — such  per- 
son. Theformer  is  the  practical  fact;  the  latter 
is  the  inevitable  conclusion.  Whether  (serv- 
ants) of  sin  unto  death,  or  of  obedience 
(to  God)  unto  righteousness.  The  slave  of 
one  man  cannot  be  obedient  to  another  man. 
The  slave  must  serve  his  own  master.^  The 
preposition  'unto' — here,  'unto  death';  'unto 
righteousness,'  marks  result  of  service  without 
impl3'ing  intention  or  aim.  Life,  instead  of 
'righteousness,'  would  be  the  more  exact  anti- 
thesis to  '  death  '  :  but  righteousness  best  suits 
the  apostle's  course  of  thought  here:  Tholuck 
cites  parallel  passages  from  Socrates  and 
Seneca.  ['Death'  (eararos),  the  opposite  of 
righteousness  (which  has  "eternal  life"  for 
its  result),  does  not  denote  annihilation,  nor 
does  it  here  refer  exclusively  or  mainly  to 
phj'sical  death,  this  being  not  in  all  cases  the 
result  of  individual  sin.  According  to  De 
"Wette,  it  is,  generally,  the  misery  of  sin,  or 
more  specifically,  estrangement  from  the  true 
life.  In  the  light  of  ver.  21,  23,  it  must,  Ave 
think,  be  regarded  as  the  opposite  of  life 
eternal.  Mej-er  versus  De  "Wette,  Philippi, 
Lange,  Godet,  and  others,  does  not  regard  this 


'righteousness'  as  moral  righteousness  (as  in 
ver.  13),  but,  in  the  light  of  a  final  result  and 
in  antithesis  to  death,  as  the  sentence  of  justi- 
fication which  will  be  awarded  in  the  judg- 
ment. Some,  as  Alford,  take  'righteousness,' 
and  so  'death,'  in  its  most  general  sense.] 

17.  Here  the  dilemma  stated  above  is  solved 
for  them  by  an  appeal  to  fact.  And  this  is 
done  in  the  form  of  a  thanksgiving  to  God. 
We  are  not  to  understand  the  thanksgiving, 
however,  as  having  reference  only,  or  princi- 
pally to  the  first  clause,  ye  were  the  serv- 
ants of  sin,  or  even  eq^cally  to  both  clauses: 
but  the  thanksgiving  has  emphntic  reference 
to  the  second  clause,  which,  however,  presup- 
poses the  first,  and  could  not  have  existed 
without  it.  'Ye  were,'  is  emphatic,  the 
en)phasis  falling  on  the  tense  of  the  verb, 
[which  implies  that  the  bondage  is  a  thing  of 
the  past;  compare  Ilium  fuit.]  The  sense  of 
the  verse  would  be  substantially  preserved,  if 
the  first  clause  were  expressed  hypothetically, 
though  ye  were,  or  participially,  having  been. 
[This  is  substantially  the  view  of  Winer  (p. 
630)  in  opposition  to  Fritzsche,  Meyer,  Phil- 
ippi, and  others,  who  lay  stress  on  the  past 
tense  of  the  verb  (compare  1  Cor.  6:  11; 
Eph.  5:  8)  in  the  manner  indicated  above.-  A 
similar  phraseology,  connected,  as  here,  with 
thanksgiving  to  God,  is  found  in  our  Lord's 
words  in  Matt.  11:  25.]  Ye  have  obeyed, 
etc.  This  sentence  loses  not  a  little  of  its 
significance  from  a  change  in  our  Common 
Version  of  the  grammatical  relations  of  the 
words.  The  latter  verb  as  well  as  the  former 
is  in  the  second  person.  Ye  have  obeyed  from 
the  heart  that  form,  [probably  the  anti-Juda- 
istic  type^  of  teaching  into  which  ye  were  de- 
livered.^   'Ye  were  delivered,'  by  your  own 


i"Ye  cannot  serve  God  and  Mammon.*'  Philippi, 
defining  the  force  of  rot  in  ^rot  says:  '  ^rot  .  .  .  tj, 
either  oji/y,  this  or  that,  tertium  non  datur."  This  par- 
ficle  is  found  only  here  in  the  New  Testament. — (F.) 

-  X  fi-iv  after  the  verb  'were,' in  contrast  with  the 
following  Se  (but),  might  here  have  naturally  been  ex- 
pected, but  is  probably  dispensed  with  because  of  the 
stress  mentioned. — (F.) 


3  On  the  grammatiral  construction  of  this  sentence, 
see  Winer,  pp.  164,  261.  The  verb  obey,  which  is  usually 
followed  by  the  dative,  here  has  the  accusative,  owing, 
perhaps,  to  the  attraction  of  the  antecedent  (itself  in 
the  relative  clause)  to  the  case  of  the  relative,  which  is 
the  reverse  of  the  usual  rule.  In  the  LXX,  however, 
this  verb  sometimes  takes  the  simple  accusative. — (F.) 


Ch.  VI.J 


ROMANS. 


159 


18  Being  then  made  free  from  sin,  ye  became  the 
servants  uf  righteousness. 

19  1  siH-alv  after  the  manner  of  men  because  of  the 
intirmitv  of  your  tiesh:  for  as  ye  have  yielded  your 
members  servants  to  uncleauuess  and  to  iniquity  unto 


18  ered;  and  being  made  free  from  sin,  ye  became 'serv- 

19  ants  of  righteousness.  I  sjieak  after  the  manner  of 
men  because  of  the  infirmity  of  your  fiesh  :  lor  as  ye 
presented  your  members  a.v  servants  to  uncleanness 
and  to  iniquity  unto  iniquity,  even  so  now  presenl 


1  Gr.  bondaervanta. 


free  act,  and  with  gladness  of  heart,  as  plastic 
material,  to  be  shaped  and  moulded  by  this 
doctrine.  [With  this  t]/2)e  of  doctrine  (which 
Dr.  J.  B.  Thomas  in  his  "  Mould  of  Doctrine'' 
refers  especially  to  baptism)  compare  the/o?-m 
of  knowledge,  2:  20.  If  Paul  could  say: 
"thanks  be  to  God,"  because  the  Konian 
Christians  had  received  and  obeyed  the  right 
form  of  gospel  teaching,  surely  the  type  of 
teaching  which  we  receive  and  obey  or  which 
religious  teachers  impart  to  others  cannot  be 
a  matter  of  indiftorence.  In  studying  or  teach- 
ing God's  word,  how  appropriate  the  prayer 
that  we  may  be  saved  from  all  fatal  or  hurtful 
error,  and  be  guided  into  all  necessary  truth  ! 
And  in  view  of  the  darkness  in  us  and  around 
us,  and  of  our  dependence  on  divine  illumi- 
nation, no  words  of  supplication  can  be  more 
relevant  than  those  of  Young  and  of  Milton : 

Teach  my  best  reason,  reason. 

What  in  me  is  dark. 
Illumine ;  what  is  low,  raise  and  support.] 

18.  Being  then  made  free  from  sin,  etc. 
[Better:  bid  having  been  freed  from  sin,  ye 
were  tnade  servants  to  righteousness.  There 
is  no  middle  ground.  The  passive  forms  of 
l)artioiple  and  verb  indicate  divine  agency  or 
co-operation,  and  so  in  ver.  22.]  Ye  were 
freed  from  the  service  of  sin,  that  ye  might 
enter  a  new  and  better  service— the  service  of 
righteousness.  Yet  this  is  truly  a  service  as 
well  as  the  other :  ye  were  enslaved,  or,  ye 
became  enslaved,  to  righteousness,  the  verb 
might  be  rendered.  [Free,  yet  slaves:  for  a 
similar  paradox,  seel  Cor.  7:  22.  "If  human 
action,"  says  Prof.  Cremer,  "in  sin  (i/mapTia) 
misses  its  divine  standard  or  goal,  we  can  un- 


derstand why  'conformity  to  the  standard' 
{iiKaioavvTi)  appears,  especially  in  the  Epistle 
to  the  Romans,  as  its  opposite."] 

19.  After  the  manner  of  men.  I  speak 
in  accordance  with  the  human,  fleshly  nature 
and  relationship  of  men— according  to  "what 
or  how  man  or  human  nature  is,  what  is  peculiar 
to  it."  (Cremer.)  Compare  3:  5.  There  is  a 
diiference  of  opinion  in  regard  to  the  first 
part  of  this  verse.  Those  who  refer  it  to  the 
words  immediately  preceding,  regard  it  as  a 
sort  of  apology  for  the  expression,  'ye-  were 
enslaved  to  righteousness.'  As  if  he  had  said, 
"the  servant  of  righteousness  is  no  slave; 
God's  service  is  our  only  true  freedom  (ps.  ii6: 

16  ;  119  :  45  ;  Matt.  11 :  30  ;  John  8  :  32,  34,  36  ;  1  John  5  :  3)  ;   but 

I  use  this  word  to  set  the  contrast  more  plainly 
before  you.  Both  are  equally  a  service,  so  far 
as  certainty  of  obedience  is  concerned,  though 
in  other  respects  they  differ  widely:  and  I 
use  this  word  also  in  condescension  to  the 
weakness  of  your  flesh  ;  for  because  of  that 
weakness  it  seems,  and  in  part  is,  a  bondage." 
Others  refer  these  words  to  what  follows, 
and  see  in  them  a  sort  of  apology  for,  or 
protest  against,  the  low  view  of  their  obliga- 
tions which  he  presents,  in  only  requiring 
them  to  be  as  faithful  in  the  service  of  right- 
eousness as  they  had  before  been  in  the  service 
of  sin,  whereas  they  ought  to  aim  at  a  great 
deal  more  than  this.^  The  former  explana- 
tion is  preferable;  and  it  is  a  serious  objection 
to  the  latter,  that  it  assumes  a  false  meaning 
in  the  words  as  and  even  so,  which  do  not 
imply  equality  of  degree,  but  only  similarity 
of  fact.  For  as  ye  have  yielded  your 
members  servants  to  uncleanness  (sins 
against  your  own  persons),  and  to  iniquity 


t  If  we  were  anywhere  nearly  as  active  and  persever- 
ing in  the  service  of  God  as  we  were  in  the  service  of 
sin,  we  should  expect  with  more  confidence  than  we 
can  now,  the  plaudit:  "Well  done,  good  and  faithful 
servants."  Instead  of  calling  ourselves  even  "unprofit- 
able servants,"  doing  our  whole  duty  to  God,  it  some- 
times seems  that  we  should  hardly  be  called  servants  at 
all.  And  what  shall  we  say  of  those  whose  only  striv- 
ing is  to  resist  the  light  and  influence  of  the  gospel  in 
their  service  of  sin?  who  make  it  their  life's  business, 


seemingly,  to  find  some  excuse  for  their  rejection  ol 
Christ  and  his  service?  Let  them  be  assured  that  there 
is  no  good  reason  why  they  should  not  love  and  serve 
the  Saviour,  and  that  if  they  will  strive  but  half  as 
hard  to  be  saved  as  to  be  lost,  they  will  make  their  sal- 
vation sure.  In  regard  to  this  "  weakness  of  the  flesh," 
some  refer  it  to  intellectual  weakness  (DeWette,  Meyer, 
Philippi),  others  to  moral  weakness  (Godet),  or  weak- 
ness of  spiritual  apprehension  (D.  Brown). — (F.) 


160 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  VI. 


iniquity  ;  even  so  now  yield  your  members  servants  to 
rigUteuusness  unto  holiness. 

■j.{)  For  when  ye  were  the  servants  of  sin,  ye  were 
free  fioiu  righteousness. 

21  What  fruit  had  ye  then  in  those  things  whereof 
ye  are  now  ashamed?  for  the  end  of  those  things  is 
death. 


your  members  as  servants  to  righteousness   unto 

20  sanctitication.     For  when  ye  were  '  servants  of  sin, 

21  ye  were  Iree  in  regard  of  righteousness.  What  fruit 
then  had  ye  at  that  time  in  the  things  whereof  ye 
are  now  ashamed?  lor  the  end  of  those  things  is 


1  Gr.  botidservants. 


(sins  against  God  and  your  neighbor)  unto 
iniquity  ifrom  one  iniquity  unto  another), 
even  so  now  yield  [at  once  and  completely, 
imperative  aoristj  your  members  servants 
to  righteousness  unto  holiness.  [The 
word  rendered  iniquity,  is  properly  lawless- 
ness, that  "state  of  moral  License  which  either 
knows  not,  or  regards  not,  law,  and  in  which 
the  essence  of  sin  abides.''  (iJoiin3:4.)  (Elli- 
cott. )  •  '  Unto  holiness^  denoting  result.  This 
word,  (oyioo-fids,  not  oyicoo-vvij  as  in  1 :  4,  also 
2  Cor.  7  :  1 ;  1  Thess.  3:  13),  is  in  the  Kevised 
Version  everywhere  rendered  "sanctifica- 
tion,"  while  Meyer  asserts  that  in  the  New 
Testament,  "it  is  always  holiness,  not  sancti- 
ficati()n."]^  The  word  twice  translated  'serv- 
ants' (or,  slaves)  has  an  adjective  form,  being 
in  the  neuter  gender,  and  agreeing  in  both 
cases  with  the  word  'members.'  Everywhere 
else  it  is  a  noun. 

20.  For  introduces  the  motive  for  comply- 
ing with  the  closing  exhortation  of  the  pre- 
ceding verse.  When  ye  were  the  servants 
of  sin.  In  your  former  unconverted  state. 
This  is  a  true  characterization  of  all  the  unre- 
generate:  in  various  form.s  and  in  various 
degrees,  they  are  all  mastered  by  sin.  Ye 
were  free  from  righteousness.  ["Miser- 
able freedom  !  "]  Ye  were  free  in  respect  to 
righteousness  :  in  point  of  right,  bound  to  be 
righteous;  but  in  point  oi  fact,  independent 
of  its  demands,  and  devoted  to  the  service  of 
the  opposite  master — sin.^    '  Ycf  were  free  from 


righteousness'  does  not  mean,  ye  were  with- 
out any  righteousness — wholly  sinful;  but,  ye 
felt  no  obligation  to  be  righteous,  ye  enjoyed 
your  liberty  in  sin,  without  restraint.  Whether 
or  not  there  is  any  real  benefit,  or  satisfying 
enjoyment  in  that  freedom,  we  learn  from  the 
next  verse. 

21.  What  fruit  had  ye  then.  [Tholuck 
gives  the  connection  of  this  verse  with  the 
preceding  as  follows:  "While  engaged  in 
the  service  of  sin,  j'ou  possessed,  it  is  true,  the 
advantage  of  standing  entirely  out  of  all  sub- 
jection to  righteousness,  but  let  us  look  to 
what  is  to  be  the  final  result."  The  verb  is 
in  the  imperfect  tense:  what  fruit  were  ye 
having.]^  'Then'  is  not  an  adverb  of  time 
here,  but  of  reasoning;  as  when  we  say, 
"  Well,  then,"  in  introducing  some  question. 
[The  text,  however,  has  another  word  (rort) 
meaning  then,  or,  at  that  time — namely,  when 
ye  were  the  servants  of  sin.]  'Fruit' — that 
is,  benefit,  advantageous  result,  or,  result  in 
general,  whether  good  or  bad.  As  this  verse 
is  commonly  pointed,  the  question  seems  not 
to  be  answered  ;  yet  the  last  clause  of  the  verse 
assumes  that  an  unfavorable  answer  has  been 
given,  and  assigns  a  reason  for  that  answer. 
\ivi&  divide  the  first  half  of  the  verse,  making 
the  question  end  with  the  word,  'then,'  and 
regarding  the  next  clause  as  the  answer,  we 
shall  get  a  diflTere-nt  but  very  appropriate  and 
forcible  sense,  thus:  what  fruit  then  had  ye  at 
that  time?    (fruit)   whereof    ye   are   now 


1  Ben  gel  arranges  by  degrees,  thus:  ayiaaij-o^,  ayiw- 
(rvvfj,  avioTT)?,  "  sanctification,"  "  sanctity,"  "  holiness." 
The  last  two  are  predicated  especially  of  Deity,  the 
first  cannot  be,  as  it,  by  usnge,  implies  the  taint  and 
stain  of  sin.  Holiness  in  man  is  properly  the  result  of 
a  sanctifying  process,  or  of  sanctification,  taken  in  its 
usual  active  sense.  Our  complete  sanctification  is  holi- 
ness. The  word  ayiao-Mos  (exclusively  a  Biblical  term) 
occurs  eight  times  in  Paul's  epistles,  Rom.  6 :  19,  22; 
1  Cor.  1 :  30;  1  Thess.  4:  3,  4,  7;  2  Thess.  2:  13;  1  Tim. 
2:  l.T  ;  also  in  Heb.  12:  14;  1  Peter  1 :  2.  Prof.  Cremer 
notes  three  places  where  the  word  is  used  in  a  passwe 
signification,  meaning  holiness — towit,  Rom.  6:  19,22; 
1  Cor.  1 :  80:  ayio-n)!  (holiness)  occurs  only  in  Heb.  12: 


10.  "  Holiness  is  the  moral  quality  to  be  acquired,  but 
'sanctification'  (oviao-^os)  includes  the  sanctifying 
act  or  process,  as  well  as  its  result."  "  Bible  Commen- 
tary."—(F.) 

-  'EAtuOepos,-  from  eAeveepi,  1.  q.,  epxofiai,  literally 
means,  "  free  to  go."  The  dative,  which  in  classic  Greek 
never  follows  the  adjective  '  free,'  denotes,  according  to 
Cremer,  the  "  moral  relation  of  subjective  surrender," 
similarly  as  in  the  expression,  'servants  to  unclean- 
ness,'  etc.,  in  the  last  verse.  It  may  be  called  the  dative 
of  respect  or  reference. — (F.) 

3  Notice  difference  of  accent  between  this  nVa  {what 
fruit)  and  the  nt'a  {some  fruit)  of  1 :  13. — (F.) 


Ch.  VI.] 


ROMANS. 


161 


22  But  now  being  made  free  from  sin,  and  become 
servauts  to  (iod,  ye  liave  your  fruit  uuto  holiness,  and 
the  end  everlasting  life. 


22  death.    But  now  being  made  free  from  sin,  and  be- 
come servants  to  God,  ye  have  your  fruit  unto  saucti- 

23  fication,  and  the  end  eternal  life.     For  the  wages  of 


ashamed.  For  the  end  of  those  things 
is  death.i  tj^^  reasons  in  favor  of  this  method 
of  dividingand  punctuatingtheveracare  :  that 
it  supplies  the  answer  to  the  question,  which  the 
last  clause  of  the  verse  seems  to  require ;  that  it 
does  not  require  to  be  supplemented  by  the 
words  'in  those  things,'  in  the  firstchiuseof  the 
verse,  to  wliich  there  is  nothing  answering  in  the 
Greek  ;  that  it  furnishes,  witliout  these  supple- 
mental words,  a  suitable  antecedent  (in  the 
plural  relative)  to  the  those  things  of  the  last 
clause  ;  that  it  better  agrees  witli  the  sense  of 
the  preposition,  with  tlie  relative,  of  which,  or 
for  which,  rendered  'whereof  in  Common 
Version  ;  that  it  gives  to  the  words,  '■whereof 
ye  are  now  ashamed,'  which  otherwise  seem 
but  an  incidental  observation,  not  particularly 
relevant,  a  special  pertinence  and  force;  in 
fine,  that  it  makes  the  relation  of  the  three 
clauses  more  plain  and  pertinent:  the  first 
asks  a  question,  the  second  answers  it,  the 
third  gives  a  reason  for  the  answer.  But 
Meyer 2  objects,  that  this  view  is  opposed  to 
"the  antithesis  in  ver.  22,  where  the  having  of 
fruit,  and  not  its  quality,  is  opposed  to  the 
preceding":  but  is  not  the  quality  expressed 
in  the  words,  u7ito  holiness,  and  do  not  these 
form  a  very  suitable  antithesis  to  fruit  'of 
which  ye  are  ashamed  '  ?  Again  he  objects,  that 
therelative  'which'  ispi2«-«i,whereas  the  word 
'fruit'  is  siyigular  ;  but  this  can  hardly  be 
regarded  as  a  serious  objection,  inasmuch  as 
the  word  'fruit    is  a  noun  of  multitude :  again 


he  objects,  that  the  word  'fruit'  [in  Paul's 
writings]  has  always  a  good  sense,  and  that 
Paul  negatives  the  evil  sense,  in  Eph.  5:  11, 
by  calling  "the  works  of  darkness  unfruit- 
ful" :  but  for  proof  that  the  word  may  be 
used  in  an  evil  sense,  see  Matt.  7:  17-19;  12: 
o3 ;  Kom.  7:  5.  There  are  sufficiently  re- 
spectable authorities,  ancient  and  modern,  on 
both  sides:  witliMeyer  and  the  Common  [also 
the  Kevi.sed]  Version  agree  Chrysostom,  Beza, 
Calvin,  Grotius,  Wetstein,  Bengel,  Fritzsche, 
Winer  [Hodge,  Stuart,  Shedd,  Westcott  and 
Hort,  etc.]  But  in  favor  of  the  other  view, 
are  Theodoret,  Erasmus,  Melanchthon,  Tho- 
luck,  De  Wette,  Olshausen,  [Philippi,  Godet,] 
Evvald,  Tischendorf,  etc.,  etc. 

22.  But  now.  The  'now'  is  rather  logical 
than  temporal,  yet  in  this  case  both  senses 
coincide.  [This  phrase  (wvl  hi),  expressive  of 
strcmgcontrast,  occurs  eighteen  times  in  Paul's 
epistles.  In  the  classics  it  is  always  used  in 
a  temporal  sen.se.]  Being  (or,  having  been) 
made  free  from  sin ;  not  having  been  made 
sinless,  but  having  been  emancipated  from 
the  bondage  of  sin.*  Become  servants  of 
God  (or,  having  been  enslaved  to  God;  com- 
pare ver.  18),  or,  'having  bound  yourselves 
to  the  service  of  God.'  Ye  have  your  fruit 
unto  holiness  {or,  sanctification),\n  contrast 
to  ver.  21,  with  emphasis  upon  have  and  holi- 
ness. [Ye  (no  longer  fruitless)  "have  your 
fruit  in  the  direction  of  holiness."  (Godet.) 
Less  literally,  Noyes:  "Ye  have  holiness  as 


1  We  do  not,  then,  as  some  vainly  imagine,  receive 
the  full  punishment  of  sin  as  we  go  along.  "  Destruc- 
tion "  lies  at  the  end  of  the  broad  road.  "  The  end  of 
those  things  is  death."  "The  end  of  whom  is  perdi- 
tion." The  death  which  sin  deserves  and  incurs  is  an 
essential  unity,  manifesting  itself,  however,  in  diverse 
forms.  It  is  death  lo  the  body  ;  death  to  holiness  and 
true  happiness  ;  death  to  eternal  life  in  Christ.  It  is 
death  physical,  spiritual,  eternal,  the  counterpart  of  the 
eternal  life.  De  Wette  says*  "It  is  certain  that  here 
and  in  ver.  16,  the  idea  of  mere  physical  death  does  not 
suflBce."  On  the  bringing  forth  of  fruit  unto  death, 
see  ver.  5  of  the  next  chapter. — (F.) 

2  Meyer's  own  explanation  of  the  passage  is  this: 
What  fruit,  noiv,  had  ye  then  of  things  over  uhich  ye  are 
now  ashamed— that  is,  ye  had  then  no  fruit,  no  moral 
gain,  etc.,  and  the  proof  thereof  is  :  for  the  final  result 
of  those  things  is  death.  What  leads  at  last  to  death 
could  bring  you  no  moral  gain. — (F.) 


3  Freed  both  from  its  curse  and  from  its  reigning 
power.  When  it  is  said  of  Christians  that  they  are  free 
from  sin,  and  that  they  "cannot  sin,"  we  must  regard 
such  expressions  as  relating  to  the  general  character 
of  the  actions  of  the  regenerate.  Bengel, after  Gataker, 
compares  the  regenerate  to  the  magnetic  needle — qruB 
poliim  petit;  facile  dimovetur,  sed  semper  polvm  repetit. 
"  The  needle  seeks  the  pole,  is  easily  turned  away,  but 
always  seeks  it  again."  "  The  apostle  does  not  expect 
fro7u  the  Christian  at  once  the  total  eradication  of 
every  sinful  propensity  in  the  heart,  although  that 
certainly  is  the  ultimate  end  at  which  he  aims,  but  for 
the  present,  that  the  ungodly  inclinations  shall  merely 
not  be  lords  of  his"  inward  life."  (Tholuck.)  Yet  what 
Christian  would  not  rejoice  to  be  in  such  subjection  to 
God  and  righteousness  that  he  shall  have  no  unholy 
desires;  yea,  that  he  shall  attain  to  the  non  posse  pec- 
care — that  is,  "  find  it  impossible  to  sin."  Compare 
1  John  3 :  9.— (F.) 


162 


EOMANS. 


[Cii.  VII. 


23  For  the  wages  of  sin  is  death  ;  but  the  gift  of  God 
is  eternal  life  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord. 


sin  is  death  ;  but  the  free  gift  of  God  is  eternal  life 
in  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord. 


CHAPTER  VII. 


KNOW  ye  not,  brethren,  (for  I  speak  to  them  that 
know  the  law,)  how  that  the  law  hath  dominion 
over  a  man  as  long  as  he  liveth  ? 


1      Or  are  ye  ignorant,  brethren  (for  I  speak  to  men 
that  know  Hhe  law),  how  that  the  law  hath  do- 


the  fruit."]  It  is  a  great  blessing,  not  a  hard 
yoke,  to  have  a  holy  character.  And  the 
end  [ye  have  as  the  end]  everlasting  life. 

The  present  fruit,  holiness;  the  future  con- 
summation, life  eternal.  [We  have  in  this 
verse,  remarkable  for  its  depth  and  compre- 
hensiveness, a  miniature  sketch  of  tlie  entire 
history  of  a  redeemed  man,  beginning,  impli- 
edly, with  his  bondage  to  sin  while  in  a  state 
of  nature,  and  ending  with  the  award  of  the 
life  eternal.  What  great  and  blessed  things 
are  here  spoken  of,  too  great  for  our  finite 
comprehension,  and  for  us  lost  sinners  almost 
too  good  to  be  true!  We  can  only  say: 
Blessed  deliverance!  blessed  service!  blessed 
fruit!  blessed  reward!] 

23.  For.  This  verse  confirms  the  preced- 
ing, and  all  the  more  forcibly  on  account  of 
the  preliminary  reference  to  the  evil  from 
which  we  are  delivered.  The  wages  of  sin. 
Compare  ver.  16,  where  sin  is  represented  as 
,a  ruler  or  master,  employing  servants  and 
paying  them  wages.  The  word  translated 
'wages'*  was  used  to  designate  the  pay  of  a 
soldier  as  our  word  rations  is.  It  is  used  in 
this  restricted  sense  in  Luke  3  :  14.  In  1  Cor. 
9:  7  it  is  translated  charges.  In  2  Cor.  11  :  8 
it  is  in  the  singular  number.  These  four 
places  are  the  only  ones  where  it  is  used  in 
the  New  Testament.  Is  death.  Not  merely 
physical  death,  but  the  opposite  of  life  eternal. 
[Godet  says:  "This  term  (death),  according 
to  the  apostle,  does  not  seem  to  denote  the 
annihilation  of  the  sinner.  To  pay  any  one 
is  not  to  put  him  out  of  existence.  It  is  rather 
to  make  him  feel  the  painful  consequence  of 
his  sin — to  make  him  reap  in  the  form  of  cor- 
ruption what  he  has  sowed  in  the  form  of 
sin."]  But  the  (gracious)  gift  of  God. 
The  penalty  of  sin  is  called  wages,  earned, 


and  well  deserved  ;  but  the  fruit  of  righteous- 
ness is  not  a  deserved  reward,  but  the  free 
gift  of  God's  sovereign  grace.  Is  eternal 
life.  Not  merely  unending  existence,  but 
the  highest  form  of  life,  consummate  bliss, 
without  alloy  and  without  end.  Through 
Jesus  Christ  our  Lord.  Literally,  in  Christ 
Jesus  our  Lord.  The  apostle  says:  "Your 
life  is  hid  with  Christ  in  God.  When  Christ, 
ivho  is  our  life,  shall  appear,  then  shall  ye  also 
appear  with  him  in  glory."  (coi.3:3,4.)  We 
have  not  this  precious  treasure  in  eailhen 
vessels  (2Cor.4:7),  where  it  would  be  very  inse- 
cure, but  in  his  almighty  hand,  where  it  is 
safe  forever  more.  ["The  doctrine  of  sanc- 
tification  in  this  chapter,  and  that  of  justi- 
fication in  chapter  5,  both  end  in  the  same 
triumphant  conclusion."  ("  Bible  Commen- 
tary.")] 

Ch.  7  :  [Freedom  from  condemnation  and 
the  law  of  sin  and  death  to  be  found  only  in 
Christ,  to  whom,  as  if  by  marriage,  we  are 
united  (7:  i-s:  i).^  Many  give  as  the  purport 
of  ver.  14-25,  "the  utter  insufficiency  of  the 
law  to  produce  sanctification,"  or  "the  law 
powerless  to  enable  the  regenerate  man  to 
overcome  sin."  According  to  Philippi,  Paul 
has  pictured  in  7:  14-8:  11,  "two  aspects  of 
the  life  of  the  regenerate  man."  Olshausen, 
with  a  diflPerent  view  of  this  chapter,  sees  in 
ver.  7-24,  "the  development  of  the  individual 
until  his  experience  of  redemption."]  The 
relation  of  the  believer  to  the  law  is  now  rep- 
ser.ted  under  a  new  figure— that  of  marriage. 
This  is,  in  fact,  a  further  illustration  of  the 
proposition  laid  down  in  6:  14. 

1.  Know  ye  not,  brethren?  [Literally: 
Or  are  ye  ignorant,  brethren?  The  'or' 
naturally  relates  to  what  immediately  pre- 


1  'Oi^covia,  vile  verbum.    (Erasmus.) — (F.) 

2  It  may  be  said  that  we,  if  regenerate,  are  already  in 
Christ,  and  consequently  should  find  this  freedom  from 
condemnation  in  ourselves.  Yet  nothing;  hinders  the 
regenerate  man  from  considering  himself,  apart  from 
what  he  is  in  Christ.     So  Hofmaun  and  Delitzsch. 


Philippi  calls  this  "an  empty  abstraction."  Yet  nothing 
is  more  common  than  for  the  Christian  to  think  and  to 
tell,  in  the  way  of  contrast,  what  he  is  and  deserves  in 
himself,  and  what  he  is  and  hopes  for  "in  Christ." 
-(F.) 


Ch.  VII.] 


ROMANS. 


163 


2  For  the  woman  which  hath  a  husband  is  bound  by 
the  law  to  her  husband  as  long  as  he  liveth  ;  but  it  the 


minion  over  a  man  for  so  long  a  time  as  he  liveth? 

2  For  the  woman  that  hath  a  husband  is  bound  by 

law  to  the  husband  while  he  liveth ;  but  if  the  hus- 


cedes  ;  yet  most  expositors  refer  it  back  to  6: 
14,  "Ye  are  not  under  law  but  under  grace." 
Do  ye  not  know  that  ye  are  freed  from  sub- 
jection to  the  law,  as  a  source  and  rule  of 
justification,  'oraro  ye  ignorant,' etc.  ?  Meyer, 
however,  refers  the  'or'  to  the  last-named 
affirmation  — that  concerning  God's  gift  — 
"  wliich  affirmation  could  not  be  truth,  if  the 
Christian  were  not  free  from  the  law,  and  did 
not  belong  to  the  risen  Christ  instead.*]  The 
■word  'brethren'  is  used  here,  not  in  the 
national,  but  in  the  Christian  sense,  as  in  1  : 
13.  We  are  not  to  regard  Paul  as  addressing 
here  the  Jewish  Christians  in  particular,  but 
all  the  beloved  of  God  in  Rome  (i :  ?),  whether 
Jews  or  Gentiles.  For  I  speak  to  them 
that  know  the  law.  This  is  not  to  be  under- 
stood partitiveiy,  as  if  he  meant  to  say,  '  I 
addre-ss  myself  now  to  those  of  you  who  are 
versed  in  the  law  '  ;  but  he  addresses  himself 
to  them  collectively.  ["  I  am  speaking  to  men 
acquainted  with  the  law."  (Alford.)]  Not 
only  were  Jewish  Christians  and  the  Gentile 
proselytes  acquainted  with  the  law  of  Moses, 
but  the  Romans  generally  were  a  civilized 
people,  and  eminently  a  people  who  under- 
stood laws.  How  that  the  law  hath  domin- 
ion over  a  man  as  long  as  he  liveth?  [On 
the  genitive  case  following  the  verb,  'have 
dominion,'  see  notes  on  6:  9.  As  the  subject 
of  '  liveth  '  is  not  expressed,  some  supply  '  la w ' 
rather  than  'he,'  thus:  so  long  as  the  law  is 
in  force.  But  this  does  not  accord  so  well 
with  ver.  4.  The  last  verb  is  an  irregular 
contract,  either  indicative  or  subjunctive  in 
form,  but  indicative  in  meaning.  (Boise. "> 
Philippi,  somewhat  strangely,  interprets  this 
'liveth'  ethically,  "as  long  as  a  man  lives  his 
old  natural  life  of  sin."]  The  apostle's  subse- 
quent argument  relates  only  to  the  Mosaic 
law  ;  but  the  affirmation  here  made  is  equally 
true  in  gener^'l. 

2.  For  the  woman  Avhich  hath  a  hus- 
band [literally,  the  woman  subject  to  a  hus- 
band]. This  example  seems  to  be  chosen, 
among  many  others  in  which  death  dissolves 
a  legal  obligation,  for  the  purpose  of  repre- 
senting the  union  between  Christ  and  the 
believer  \inder  the  figure  of  the  closest  and 
tenderest  of  all   human    relations  —  that  of 


husband  and  wife.  This  comparison  is  repeat- 
edly used,  both  in  the  Old  Testament  and  in 

the  New.  (Isa.  54  :  5  ;  62  ;  5  ;  Jer.  3  :  14  ;  31 :  32  ;  Husea  2  : 
19;  John  3:  2St ;  2  Cor.  11 :  2;  Rev.  19:  7  ;  21  :  9;  22:17.)    [Paul 

here  chooses  the  example  of  the  ivife,  because 
Christ  IS  to  be  the  second  husband.  (Godet.)  ] 
A  peculiarity  of  the  illustration  in  the  present 
case,  which  has  caused  needless  perplexity  to 
some,  is  the  fact  that,  in  the  matter  designed 
to  be  illustrated  here,  the  party  which  dies, 
and  not  the  survivor,  is  the  one  released  from 
the  bond.  [The  proper  antithesis  would  be: 
the  husband  being  dead,  the  wife  is  free  to 
marry  another,  so  the  law  being  dead  ye  are 
free  to  be  married  to  Christ.  But  Paul,  wish- 
ing perhaps  to  avoid  the  phrase,  the  law  being 
dead,  which  would  be  so  oflensive  to  Jewish 
ears,  says:  "  Ye  were  rendered  dead  to  the 
law,"  which  of  course  implies  that  the  law 
has  for  such  persons  become  dead.  Meyer 
says:  "The  semblance  of  inappropriateness 
vanishes  on  considering  'ye  also'  of  ver.  4, 
from  which  it  is  plain  that  Paul  in  his  illus- 
tration follows  the  view  that  the  death  of  the 
husband  implies  in  a  metaphorical  sense  (by 
virtue  of  the  union  of  the  two  spouses  in  one 
person),  the  death  of  the  woman  also  as  re- 
spected her  married  relation,  and  consequently 
her  release  from  the  law,  in  so  far'as  it  had 
bound  her  as  a  married  wife  to  her  husband."] 
The  apostle,  in  using  this  illustration,  would 
fix  our  attention  to  the  one  point,  that  death 
dissolves  obligation  in  both  cases.  He  does 
not  undertake  to  point  out  either  agreement 
or  disagreement,  in  other  respects.  Is  bound 
[or,  as  Winer  puts  it:  accordingly  belongs] 
by  the  law  to  her  husband  as  long  as 
he  liveth.  [The  right  of  procuring  divorce 
belonged  to  the  husband  (Deut.24:  i.seq.),  which 
implies  "the  law"  that  the  woman  was  bound 
to  her  husband  during  his  life.]  Some  have 
supposed  that  the  apostle  takes  the  illustration 
from  the  case  of  the  wife,  rather  than  of  the 
husband,  because  it  was  then  so  easy  and  so 
coynmon,  both  among  Jews  and  Gentiles,  for 
the  husband  to  get  release  before  death.  It 
was  a  sure  sign  of  moral  degeneracy,  and  a 
fruitful  cause  of  increasing  it:  how  much 
more  is  it  both,  when,  as  in  so  many  modern 
and  so-called   Christian  communities,  it  is 


164 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  VII. 


husband  be  dead,  she  is  loosed  from  the  law  of  her 
husband. 

3  So  then  if,  while  her  husband  liveth,  she  be  married 
to  another  niau,  she  shall  be  called  an  adulteress:  but 
if  her  husband  be  dead,  she  is  free  from  that  law;  so 
that  she  is  no  adulteress,  though  she  be  married  to 
another  man. 

4  Wherefore,  my  brethren,  ye  also  are  become  dead 
to  the  law  by  the  body  of  Christ;  that  ye  should  be 


band  die,  she  is  discharged  from   the  law  of  the 

3  husband.  So  then  if,  while  the  husband  livelh,  she 
be  joined  to  another  luan,  sbe  shall  be  called  an 
adulteress:  but  if  the  husband  die,  she  is  free  from 
the  law,  so  that  she  is  no  adulteress,  though  she  be 

4  joined  to  another  man.  Wherefore,  my  brethren, 
ye  also  were  made  dead  to  the  law  through  the  body 


almost  equally  common,  and  equally  easy  for 
either  party  to  obtain  a  legal  release  for  causes 
comparatively  trivial.  But  if  the  husband 
be  dead  [or,  better,  may  have  died],  she  is 
loosed — that  is,  has  been  set  free  and  remains 
so  (perfect  tense), ^  from  the  law  of  her  (lit- 
erally, the)  husband — the  law  w^hich  defines 
her  relation  to  her  husband.  [Philippi  says: 
"We  should  have  expected,  the  law  of  her 
husband  is  annulled  (3:3i)  and  she  is  fj-ee. 
Bui  in  energetic  phraseology  the  notion  of 
abrogation  is  transferred  to  the  person,"  and 
we  have  this  pregnant  construction:  she  is 
annulled  (and  made  free)  from  the  law. 
"The  apostle  thtis  gives  expression  to  the 
thought  lying  at  the  basis  of  his  argument, 
that  with  the  decease  of  the  husband  the  wife 
also  has  ceased  to  exist  as  respects  her  legal 
connection  with  him.  She  is  still  existent, 
but  no  longer  bound  to  the  law  [which  deter- 
mines the  relation  of  the  wife  to  the  hus- 
band] to  which  she  died  with  the  death  of  the 
husband."] 

3.  So  then,  or,  accordingly  therefore :  the 
coupling  of  these  two  logical  particles  is  a 
peculiarity  of  Paul's  style,  occurring  twelve 
times  in  his  epistles  [see  5 :  18,  note].  If, 
while  her  husband  liveth,  she  be  married 
to  another  man  (more  literally :  she  become 
(■wife)  to  another  husband),  f^he  shall  be  called 
an  adulteress.  [The  verb  here  is  in  the 
future  of  established  rule.  It  primarily  ineant 
to  transact  business,  then  to  give  response  or 
decision.  In  later  usage  it  signified  to  do 
business  under  a  certain  name  or  title,  hence 
to  be  named  or  called.  Godet  remarks  that 
"a  large  number  of  our  family  names  are 
names  of  some  trade."]  But  if  her  hus- 
band be  dead  (better:  if  the  Misband  have 
died),  she  is  free  from  that  law  ;  so  that 
she  is  no  adulteress,  though  she  be 
married  to  another  man.  The  last  clause 
may  be  rendered  more  literally',  thus:  (for) 
having   become    (wife)    to   another    husband. 


[Meyer  translates  the  last  clause  but  one,  "in 
order  that  she  be  not  an  adulteress,"  adding 
this  explanation — "that  is  th&  jyurpose,  in- 
volved in  the  divine  legal  ordinance,  of  her 
freedom  from  the  law."  The  form  of  expres- 
sion is  certainly  favorable  to  this  idea  of 
purpose,  if  it  is  not  positively  decisive.  On 
the  infinitive  clause  in  the  genitive,  indicating 
purpose,  see  Winer,  324,  3*25.  As  a  genitive 
assigning  cause  or  reason,  it  depends  on  the 
statement,  'she  is  free,'  etc.] 

4.  Wherefore,  or,  so  that.  [So  then,  or 
accordingly,  as  in  Lange.  Beginning  a 
new  clause  with  a  finite  verb,  the  con- 
junction (fcio-Te)  has  the  sense  of  viherefore, 
therefore.  (Winer,  801.)  See  also  Buttmann, 
243.  The  word  seems  to  denote  an  actual 
or  natural  sequence  of  fact  more  than  a 
mere  logical  inference.]  We  have  here  an 
inference  both  from  the  general  principle 
(ver.  1)  and  from  the  particular  illustration, 
(ver.  2, 3.)  My  brethren,  ye  also,  as  well  as 
in  the  case  used  for  illustration,  are  become 
dead  to  the  laAV — rather,  were  put  to  death 
in  respect  to  the  law.  [And  are  thus  "quite 
like  this  wife  who  is  dead  (as  a  wife)  through 
her  husband's  death,  and  who  thus  has  the 
right  to  marrj'  again.  ...  As  the  new  hus- 
band is  a  dead  and  risen  Christ,  the  wife  must 
necessarily  be  represented  as  dead  (through 
the  death  of  her  first  husband,  the  law)  that 
she  may  be  in  a  position  to  be  united  to  Christ 
as  one  risen  again.  It  is  a  marringe,  as  it 
were,  beyond  the  tomb."  (Godet.)]  The 
verb  is  tn  the  past  tense  and  passive  Voice. 
It  is  the  same  verb  that  is  translated  "to  put 
to  death  "in  Matt.  26 :  59 ;  27 : 1 ;  Mark  14 :  55 ; 
1  Peter  3  :  18;  and  "kill"  in  Kom.  8:36;  2 
Cor.  6  :  9.  Perhaps  the  apostle  preferred  this 
stronger  expression   (BavaTota)   instead  of   the 

common  one  (aTroevijo-Kw)  "to  die"  (Rom.  6:  a,  etc.), 

as  conveying  a  more  distinct  allusion  to  the 
violent  death  of  Christ.  He  might  have  said, 
'the   law  is   dead  to  you,'  but  this,  besides 


1  On  the  force  of  the  perfect  tense  as  denoting  the  present  when  it  follows  the  subjunctive  of  objective 
possibility,  see  2 :  25,  and  Winer,  293.— (F.) 


Ch.  VIL] 


KOMANS. 


165 


married  to  another,  e.ven  to  him  wlio  is  raised  from  the 
dead,  that  we  should  bring  forth  fruit  unto  God. 
5  For  when  we  were  in  the  tlesh.the  motions  of  sins, 


of  Christ;  that  ye  should  he  joined  to  another,  even 

to  him  who  was  raised  from  the  dead,  that  we  might 

5  bring  forth  truit  unto  God.    For  when  we  were  in 

the  Mesh,  the  i  sinful  passions,  which  were  through 


1  Gr.  paations  of  sin*. 


being  more  offensive  to  the  Jews,  would  not 
have  agreed  so  well  with  the  representation 
in  the  previous  chapter.  There  we  are  said 
to  die  to  sin.  The  argument  here  may  be 
presented  in  a  sort  of  tabular  form,  thus: 

Death  dissolves  legal  obligation  : 

Death  has  dissolved  the  legal  obligation  between  hus- 
band and  wife ; 

Therefore  the  wife  is  at  liberty  to  be  married  to 
another. 

Death  has  dissolved  the  legal  obligation  between  the 
law  and  us; 

Therefore  we  are  at  liberty  to  form  another  union. 

There  the  survivor  is  released  ;  here  the  one  that  dies. 

By  (or  through)  the  body  of  Christ— that 
is,  by  the  crucifixion  of  Christ's  body.  [Com- 
pare Col.  1 :  22 ;  Heb.  10  :  5,  10 ;  1  Peter  2  :  24 ; 
also  2  Cor.  5: 14.  "If  one  died  for  all,  then 
all  died."  Here  and  in  the  previous  chapter 
the  mystical  union  of  the  believer  with  Christ 
is  everywhere  brought  to  view  or  presupposed. 
We  are  crucified  with  Christ,  we  die  with 
Christ,  we  are  buried  with  Christ,  we  rise 
with  Christ,  we  live  and  reign  with  Christ, 
etc.]  That  ye  should  be  married  to 
another.  Not  incorrect  as  to  sense,  though 
a  more  exact  rendering  would  be:  That  ye 
■might  become  (wife)  to  another,  to  him  who 
is  raised  from  the  dead.  [Compare  Gal. 
2:19:  "Through  tlie  law  I  died  to  the  law, 
that  I  might  live  unto  God."]  That  we 
should  (or  might)  bring  forth  fruit  unto 
God.  The  kind  of  fruit  which  we  are  to 
bring  forth  is  specified  in  Gal.  5  :  22,  23.  [The 
idea  of  fruit-bearing  may  here  have  some 
reference  to  the  marriage  relation.  Yet  the 
figure  of  bringing  forth  fruit  is  used,  inde- 
pendently of  such  relation,  quite  commonly  in 
the  Scriptures.  The  final  aim  of  our  having 
been  made  dead  to  the  law,  and  of  our  be- 
coming wedded  to  Christ,  is  that  we  may  live 
with  and  for  ihe  risen  Saviour  a  new  and 
holy  fruit-bearing  life.]  Observe  the  change 
from  the  second  person  in  the  first  two  verbs 
to  tlie  fimt  person  in  the  last.  "As  the  argu- 
ment advances,  the  language  of  the  apostle 
becomes  coynmunicative,  so  that  he  includes 


himself  with  his  readers."     (Meyer.)     Com- 
pare 8 :  15. 
5.  For    when   we    were    in    the    flesh. 

[We  should  naturally  have  expected  here, 
'when  we  were  under  the  law.'  But  the 
expression  '  in  the  flesh'  supposes  the  legal 
state  prior  to  death  with  Christ.]  This  verse 
shows  the  need  there  was  of  a  radical  change, 
and  confirms  the  last  clause  of  the  preceding 
verse.  When  we  were  in  our  carnal,  unre- 
generate  state  (8:8,9),  which  was,  as  the  next 
verse  intimates,  a  state  of  subjection  to  exter- 
nal rites  and  carnal  commandments.  (Gai.4:9; 
Heb.  9:10.)  "  To  be  in  the  flesh  is  to  be  endowed 
only  with  the  gifts  of  nature,  while  the  pecu- 
liar grace  is  wanting,  which  God  condescends 
to  bestow  on  his  own  elect."  (Calvin.)  [The 
\vord  translated  'flesh"  is  of  frequent  occur- 
rence in  Paul's  writings,  and  is  found  twenty- 
four  times  in  this  Epistle.  It  naturally  de- 
notes that  which  is  weak  and  perishable,  but 
is  often  used  in  the  ethical  sense  of  unclean, 
sinful.  In  8:3  it  is  called  the  "flesh  of  sin," 
not  because  it  is  the  source  of  sin  or  because 
it  is  essentially  sinful,  but  because  it  has,  in  a 
special  manner,  been  taken  possession  of  and 
controlled  by  sin.  Prof.  Cremer  says  it  signi- 
fies "the  sinful  condition  of  human  nature  in 
and  according  to  its  bodily  manifestation." 
A  glance  at  Gal.  5  :  19,  "  works  of  the  flesh,'' 
shows  that  envying,  enmity,  wrath,  are  as 
much  the  fruit  of  the  flesh,  according  to  Paul's 
use  of  this  term,  as  are  the  sensual  acts  of 
fornication,  uncleanness,  etc.  According  to 
2  Cor.  10 :  2,  3,  we  may  walk  in  the  flesh,  and 
yet  not  according  to  the  flesh.  As  Christians, 
we  mu.st  war  with  the  flesh  as  long  as  we  live, 
but  not  war  according  to  the  flesh.] 

Observe  the  distinct  notation  of  time, 'when 
we  were.'  The  motions  of  sins.  Literally, 
'the  passions  of  sins,'  not  merely  sinful  pas- 
sions, but  passions  which  are  the  occasions  of, 
the  excitements  to,  actual  sins.  [Alford  has 
"strivings"  of  sins,  "incitements"  to  sins; 
the  Bible  Union  Version,  "emotions  of  sins." 
The  word  {■na.6r,y.ara.)  is  Usually  rendered  suffer- 
ings or  afiiictions.     Gal.  5 :  24,  in  our  Common 


1  2apf,  in  distinction  from  tpeos,  denotes  living  flesh  and  includes  the  idea  of  organism.— (F.) 


166 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  VII. 


which  were  by  the  law,  did  work  in  our  luenibers  to 
bring  forth  fruit  unto  death. 
6  But  now  we  are  delivered  from  the  law,  that  being 


the  law,  wrought  in  our  members  to  bring  forth 

6  fruit  unto  death.     But  now  we  have  been  dit^charged 

from  the  law,  having  died  lo  that  wherein  we  were 


Version,  reads:  "Have  crucified  the  flesh 
with  the  afl"ections  and  lusts;"  in  the  Ke- 
vised  Version,  "passions  and  lusts."  It  is  a 
stronger  word  than  desire,  coveting,  or  Inst 
(eTTievfiia),  yet  both  may  be  regarded  as  sinful 
and  both  lead  to  sins.  Thus  the  law  not  only 
produces  a  knowledge  of  sins,  but  is,  in  one 
sense,  causative  of  sins.  Adam  Clarke,  how- 
ever, says  that  "the  law  is  only  the  means  of 
disclosing  our  sinful  propensity,  not  of  pro- 
ducing it.  As  a  bright  beam  of  the  sun  intro- 
duced into  a  room  shows  millions  of  motes  in 
all  directions — but  these  were  not  introduced 
by  the  light,  but  were  there  before  ...  so 
the  evil  propensity  was  in  the  heart  before, 
but  there  was  not  light  suflicient  to  discover 
it."  Paul,  however,  goes  further  than  this, 
and  makes  the  law,  by  its  prohibitory,  re- 
straining power,  the  innocent  means  of  excit- 
ing to  activity  the  dormant  sinful  passions. 
See  ver,  8.]  Which  were  by  the  law. 
Which  emotions  were  by  means  of  the  law, 
were  provoked  by  the  law's  prohibition. 
"The  strength  of  sin  is  the  law."  (i  Cor.  i5:o6.) 
[See  ver.' 8;  also  5:20,  "that  the  trespass 
might  abound."  The  law  has  been  repre- 
sented as  a  Z'ugel,  a  Spiegel,  and  a  Riegel,  or 
a  bridle,  a  mirror,  and  a  bar.  We  naturally 
resist  restraint.  Nitimiir  in  vetitum  seynper, 
eupimusque  negata:  "We  always  strive  after 
that  which  is  forbidden,  and  desire  that  which 
is  denied."  The  reason  why  transgressors  are 
not  more  conscious  of  their  transgressions, 
and  why  their  enmitj'  against  God  is  not  often 
felt  and  shown,  is  that  God  leaves  them,  in  a 
measure,  to  their  own  chosen  ways,  and  does 
not  exercise  his  full  restrictive  power.  If 
God,  to  use  the  thought  of  another,  should 
stretch  a  chain  across  the  road  to  hinder  the 
progress  of  one  violating  the  Sabbath,  the 
man  would  soon  become  conscious  of  wrath- 
ful feelings  against  his  Maker.]  Did  work 
in  our  members — that  is,  wrought,  or  were 
active,  in  our  members  [thus  making  these 
members  weapons  of  iniquity.  6:13;  com- 
pare Col.  3 :  5].    The  verb  so  translated,  though 


passive  in  form  (or  rather  middle  in  the  New 
Testament),  is  always  active  in  sense,  (cai. 
5; 6;  James 5: 16.)  [It  has,  according  to  Ellicott, 
"a  persistent  and  effective  character."  The 
middle  form  of  this  verb  is,  in  Paul's  writings, 
always  used  of  non-personal  action.  (Winer, 
258.)]  To  bring  forth  fruit  unto  death. 
That  we  should  bring  forth  fruit,  or,  to  the 
bringing  forth  of  fruit.  'Unto  death'  does 
not  mean  unto  death  as  the  final  result,  how- 
ever true  that  sense  might  be;  but  death  is 
personified  as  the  antithesis  to  God  at  the  end 
of  ver.  4.  That  was  fruit  for  God — God's 
fruit;  this  is  fruit  for  death — death's  fruit. 
[How  vain,  then,  to  look  to  the  law  for  life  or 
help  when  it  only  threatens  with  a  curse,  and, 
apart  from  Christ's  grace,  works  only  for  and 
unto  death.  "That  man  that  overtook  you," 
said  Christian,  "  was  Moses.  He  spareth 
none,  neither  knoweth  he  how  to  show  mercy 
to  those  that  transgress  the  law."  ("Pil- 
grim's Progress.") 

6.  But  now,  in  distinction  from  the 
'when'  at  the  beginning  of  ver.  5.  We  are 
(have  been)  delivered  from  the  law.  [That 
the  law  here  referred  to  is  the  moral  and  not 
the  ceremonial  law  is  evident  from  the  use  of 
this  word  in  the  next  verse,  and  in  others 
which  follow.  We  have  been  discharged 
from  the  law,  not  as  as  rule  of  duty,  but  as 
a  ground  or  direct  means  of  justification. 
"By  the  revelation  and  gift  of  grace,  man's 
relation  to  the  law  as  a  criminal  is  done 
away."  (Cremer.)  "We  are  freed  from 
the  law  when  God  emancipates  us  from  its 
rigid  exactions  and  curse,  and  endues  us.  with 
his  Spirit,  through  whom  we  walk  in  his 
ways."  (Calvin.)]  The  indefinite  past  terise 
of  the  Greek  here  requires  the  perfect  in 
English,  as  in  11  ;  30,  31,  and  often — always 
indeed — where  it  has  connected  with  it  an 
adverb  of  present  time.^  That  being  dead 
wherein  we  were  held.  The  participle 
translated  'being  dead'  is,  according  to  the 
correct  text,  in  the  plural  number,  agreeing 
with  'we,'  and  not  in  the  singular,  agreeing 


1  We  have  this  verb  in  ver.  3,  and  often  elsewhere. 
See  notes  on  3 :  31 ;  6:6.  Ellicott,  on  Col.  1 :  21,  remarks 
that "  in  this  union  of  the  emphatic  particle  of  abso- 
lutely present  time  with  the  aorist,  the  aorist  is  not 


equivalent  to  a  present  or  perfect,  but  marks  with  the 
proper  force  of  the  tense  that  the  action  followed  a 
given  event  and  is  now  done  with."  Still,  we  can  do 
no  better  than  to  render  it  as  perfect. — (F.) 


Ch.  VII.] 


ROMANS. 


167 


dead  wherein  we  were  held;  that  we  should  serve  in 
newness  of  spirit,  and  not  in  the  oldness  of  the  letter. 

7  What  shall  we  say  then  ?  Is  the  law  sin  ?  God 
forhid.  Nay,  I  had  ncit  known  sin,  hut  by  the  law:  for 
I  had  not  known  lust,  except  the  law  had  said,  Thou 
Shalt  not  covet. 


holden ;  so  that  we  serve  in  newness  of  the  spirit, 
and  not  in  oldness  of  the  letter. 

7  What  shall  we  say  then  ?  Is  the  law  sin?  God  for- 
hid. Howbeit,  I  had  not  known  sin,  except  through 
1  the  law :  for  I  had  not  known  -  coveting,  except  the 

8  law  had  said,  Thou  shalt  not  2 covet:  but  sin, finding 


1  Or,  taw 2  Or,  lu»t. 


with  'that'— to  wit,  the  law;  and  the  true 
sense  is,  we  having  died  to  that  in  which  we 
were  held — namely,  the  law.  The  difference 
between  tlie  two  forms  of  the  word  in  Greek 
is  only  a  difference  of  a  single  vowel,  e  (e) 
instead  of  o  (o).  This  change  is  required  alike 
by  external  and  internal  evidence.  The  plural 
form  is  required  by  the  consistency  of  the 
representation.  See  ver.  4,  and  6:2,  8,  11. 
[The  verb  'held'  (or,  held  down)  occurs  in 
1:18.]  That  Ave  should  serve.  'So  that 
we  serve,'  not  'should'  serve.  The  inference 
is  stated  as  a  matter  of  fact,  not  merely  as  an 
obligation.  In  newness  of  spirit,  and  not 
in  the  oldness  of  the  letter.  [Luther: 
"In  the  new  nature  of  the  Spirit,  and  not  in 
the  old  nature  of  the  letter."  Compare  the 
like  form  of  expression  in  6:4.]^  In  the  new 
life  of  the  Spirit,  and  not  in  the  old  life  of  the 
letter;  in  a  new  and  hearty  spiritual  obedi- 
ence, and  not  in  the  old  and  servile  literal 
conformity.  ["The  Spirit — that  is,  the  Holy 
Spirit  of  God,  who  originates  and  penetrates 
the  Christian  life — the  first  mention  of  the 
Spirit  so  much  spoken  of  in  chapter  8." 
(Alford.)  So  De  Wette,  Meyer,  Philippi, 
Godet,  Hodge,  Kiddle.  As  a  proper  name,  it 
stands  without  the  article.  "  The  letter,"  says 
De  Wette,  "is  the  Mosaic  law,  after  which,  as 
an  outward  norm,  the  moral  life  of  the  Jews 
should  be  regulated."  Compare  2  Cor.  3  : 
6,  7:  "The  ministration  of  death  in  letters, 
written  and  engraven  in  stones;"  "the  letter 
killeth."  Calvin  says:  "Before  our  will  is 
formed  according  to  the  will  of  God  by  the 
Holy  Spirit,  we  have  in  the  law  nothing  but 
the  outward  letter,  which,  indeed,  bridles  our 
external  actions,  but  does  not  in  the  least 
restrain  the  fury  of  our  lusts.     And  he  (Paul) 


ascribes  'newness'  to  the  Spirit  because  it 
succeeds  the  old  man,  as  the  letter  is  called 
'old'  because  it  perishes  through  the  Spirit." 
For  a  like  use  of  the  word  '  newness,'  see  6  :  4.] 
That  the  new  and  hearty  spiritual  service  was 
a  service  of  God,  and  the  old  and  literal  ser- 
vice a  service  of  sin,  was  so  self-evident  that 
no  further  definition  was  needed.  "When  the 
life  of  a  professed  Christian  contradicts  this 
representation,  it  is  no  longer  the  Christian 
life. 

The  effect  of  the  law  is  to  make  sin  known 
(ver.  7)  and  to  excite  it  to  greater  activity 
(ver.  8-n),  so  that,  while  the  law  is  good  (ver.  i2j, 
it  becomes  the  occasion  of  manifesting  more 
fully  the  exceeding  sinfulness  of  sin.     (ver.  i3.) 

7.  What  shall  Ave  say  then?  Compare 
4:1;  6:1.  Is  the  law  sin?  A  question 
suggested  by  ver.  5:  "The  motions  of  sins 
which  were  by  the  law."  As  the  subject  is 
abstract,  an  abstract  predicate  was  suitable. 
He  might  have  said:  Is  the  law  sinful?  but 
that  would  have  been  less  forcible.  [This 
question  relates  to  the  law  as  being  itself  sinful 
rather  than  as  being  simply  causative  of  sin.] 
God  forbid.  No;  the  law  is  not  sin  ;  that  is 
not  what  I  meant  to  say;  but  I  did  not  know 
sin,  etc.^  Except  the  law.  I  did  not  under- 
stand the  essential  nature  and  comprehensive- 
ness of  sin  [its  power  and  enormity]  except 
by  the  law.  Nay  (for  indeed,  re  yap),  I  had 
not  known  lust — coveteousness  (as  sin) — ex- 
cept the  law  had  said,  Thou  shalt  not 
covet.3  [Note  the  use  of  the  prohibitory 
future,  'Thou  shalt  not  covet,'  instead  of  the 
imperative.  This  legal  (Old  Testament)  idiom 
"views  the  command  as  already  obeyed  in 
the  future,  and  is,  therefore,  more  command- 
ing in  tone  than  the  imperative."   (Philippi.)] 


1  The  negative  ij-v  rather  than  oO  is  used  in  telic  sen- 
tences, and  with  the  infinitive  after  uiare,  denoting 
consequence,  though  this  consequence  be  a  matter  of 
fact.  It  it  admitted  here  because  the  contrasted  noun 
is  negatived  and  not  the  verb.    (Buttmann,  349.)— (F.) 

2  With  av  the  rendering  would  be:  I  should  not  have 
known  (such  a  thing  as)  sin.  Here  th?  apostle  repre- 
sents it  more  as  an  actual  occurrence. — (F.) 


3  The  word  n^^ti",  though  pluperfect  in  form,  is  used 
for  the  imperfect,  and  its  literal  rendering  here  would 
be :  /  wa.i  not  knoiving,  or,  supplying  av,  I  should  not 
have  known.  On  the  frequent  omission  of  dv  in  the 
apodosis  in  later  Greek,  especially  with  the  imperfect 
tense,  see  Winer,  305.— (F.) 


168 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  VII. 


8  But  sin,  taking  occasion  by  the  commandment, 
wrought  in  uie  all  manner  of  concupiscence.  For 
without  the  law  sin  uas  dead. 


occasion,  wrought  in  me  through  the  commandment 
all  manner  of  i  coveting :  for  apart  from  i  the  law  sin 


1  Or,  lust 2  Or,  law. 


'  Lust,'  or  coveteousness  [with  the  article,  "the 
desire  after  whatever  is  forbidden"  (Meyer)], 
here  includes  all  unlawful  desire,  whatever 
be  the  object.  "I  should  not  have  recognized 
such  desire  as  sin  if  the  law  had  not  forbidden 
it.'"  ["What  the  law  forbids  us  to  covet 
(Exod.  20  :  17;  Deut.  5  :  21)  was  no  concern 
of  the  apostle  here,  looking  to  the  universality 
of  his  representation."  (Meyer.)  Two  dif- 
ferent verbs,  meaning  know,  are  used  in  this 
verse  (to  wit,  YtKiiffKw  and  olSa).  The  former 
denotes,  generally,  a  more  intimate  knowl- 
edge, a  fuller  understanding,  than  the  latter, 
which  means  rather  to  know  about  something, 
to  be  aware  of  some  fact.  ^^Ginosko  (the 
former),  while  it  includes  oida  (the  latter), 
contains  also  much  more;  piercing  through 
circumstantial  knowledge,  it  reaches  to  the 
discernment  of  the  inner  nature,  of  character, 
of  moral  qualities,  habits,  temper,  affections. 
It  signifies  appreciation  or  experimental  ac- 
quaintance, whether  good  or  bad,  such  as 
exists  between  intimate  friends  or  inveterate 
foes."  ("  Bible  Commentary.")  According 
to  Prof.  Cremer,  the  former  implies  an  active 
''personal  relation  between  the  person  know- 
ing and  the  object  known,"  whereas  in  the 
use  of  the  latter  the  object  of  knowledge  "has 
simply  come  within  the  sphere  of  perception, 
within  the  knower's  circle  of  vision."  The 
former  (viviitrKu),  therefore,  is  naturally  used 
of  Christian  knowledge,  the  saving  knowledge 
of  God,  of  Christ,  of  truth  and  salvation. 
Though  Paul  here  uses  the  pronoun,  'I,'  he 
at  the  same  time  speaks  representatively  for 
others.]  Observe  how  jealously  the  apostle 
guards  against  any  disparagement  of  the  law, 
both  here  and  in  ver.  12,  13. 

8.  But  sin.  The  'but'  is  explained  by  the 
emphatic  negation  in  the  preceding  verse: 
No,  indeed,  the  law  is  not  sin  ;  but  (it  is  true) 
that  'sin,'  taking  occasion  [start,  or  im- 
pulse, hence  "more  than  mere  opportunity  " 
(Alford)]— that  is,  finding  the  wherewith  to 
attack  me.  [Sin  is  here,  as  in  ver.  11,  per- 
sonified as  an  enemy.]  It  will  be  observed 
that  the  punctuation  is  changed  in  this  verse, 
and  the  phrase  'by  the  commandment'  is 
separated  from  'taking  occasion'  [with  which 


Olshausen  and  Philippi  would  connect  it]  and 
joined  with  the  following  clause.  There  are 
two  reasons  for  this  change  [favored  by  De 
Wette,  Meyer  Godet,  and  most  expositors]: 
In  the  first  place,  the  preposition  by  [Sid)  is 
not  the  one  which  would  be  used  after  'taking 
occasion,'  if  those  two  clauses  had  been  in- 
tended to  be  so  connected,  but  the  preposition 
from  (eic)  would  have  been  used;  in  the  sec- 
ond place,  the  last  clause  of  ver.  11,  'and  by 
it  slew  me,'  shows  the  true  connection  of  'by 
the  commandment'  with  the  following  verb. 
[See  also  ver.  13.]  Wrought  in  me  all 
manner  of  concupiscence  ;  rather,  coveting 
(Kevised  Version) — that  is,  of  unlawful  desire. 
[This  word  («n-i0v^i'a)  is  once  used  by  our 
Saviour  of  holy  desire.  (Luke  22: 15.)  See  also 
Gal.  5:  17:  "The  Spirit  lusteth  against  the 
flesh."]  Our  common  translation,  by  using 
such  different  words — lust,  covet,  coyicupis- 
cence — in  these  two  verses,  loses  much  of  the 
force  of  the  apostle's  language.  The  Bible 
Union  Eevision  [as  also  the  Canterbury  Ke- 
vision]  avoids  this  fault.  For  without  (or, 
apart  from)  the  law  sin  was  dead — that 
is,  inoperative,  inactive,  comparatively.  Is, 
rather  than  'was,'  should  be  supplied  here; 
the  aflSrmation  is  a  general  maxim.  [This 
death  of  sin  must  be  regarded  as  relative 
and  not  as  absolute.  In  this  death-state  "sin 
cannot  mature  in  its  root;  it  cannot  come 
to  transgression."  (Lange. )  "The  inward 
discord  is  not  yet  awakened."  (De  Wette.) 
"As  a  rapidly-flowing  stream  rolls  calmly  on 
so  long  as  no  object  checks  it,  but  foams  and 
roars  so  soon  as  any  hindrance  stops  it,  just 
as  calmly  does  the  sinful  element  hold  its 
course  through  the  man  so  long  as  he  does 
not  stem  it,  but  if  he  would  realize  the  divine 
commandment,  he  begins  to  feel  the  force  of 
the  element  of  whose  dominion  he  had  as  yet 
no  suspicion."  (Olshausen.)  The  law,  com- 
ing home  to  the  conscience  in  all  its  spiritu- 
ality and  power,  and  making  known  the  guilt 
and  condemnation  attendant  on  its  willful 
violation,  may  well  be  called  "the  strength 
of  sin."  (1  Cor.  15:56.)  Mcycr  regards  '  without 
the  law'  as  utter  absence,  or  utter  ignorance, 
of  the  law,  but  this  meaning  ill  accords  with 


Ch.  VII.] 


ROMANS. 


169 


9  For  I  was  alive  without  the  law  once:  but  when 
the  couiujandmeul  came,  sin  revived,  and  1  died. 


9  14  dead.    And  I  was  alive  apart  from  >  the  law  once: 
but  when  the  commaudmeut  came,  sin  revived,  aud 


the  next  verse.]  What  can  the  word  'sin' 
denote,  at  the  beginning  and  end  of  this  verse 
but  the  principle  of  sin,  depravity,  indwelling 

sin  ? 

9.  For.  The  Greek  particle  at  the  begin- 
ning of  this  verse  would  bo  better  translated, 
7iow;  'for,'  of  the  Common  Version,  is  too 
strong,  'and,'  of  the  Bible  Union  Revision, 
is  too  weak.  Now  I  was  alive  (or,  was  liv- 
ing;  note  the  force  of  the  imperfect  tense) 
Avithout  the  law  once— better,  apart  from 
the  law  formerly.  The  law  was  to  me  (though 
a  familiar  object  from  my  youth)  an  external, 
distant,  object ;  it  had  not  come  home  to  me 
[in  all  its  breadth  and  spirituality  and  co7i- 
rfem«i«(7  power].  When  was  this  formerly  ? 
Not  in  some  imaginary  period  of  primeval  or 
youthful  innocence  and  piety  (Origen,  Augus- 
tine, Meyer,  De  Wette,  Godet,  and  others), 
but,  as  explained  below,  before  'the  command- 
ment came  '  to  the  heart  and  conscience  "with 
a  convincing  power  and  light."  '  I  was  liv- 
ing '  expresses  activity,  in  contrast  with  '  dead,' 
at  the  end  of  the  preceding  verse.  It  ex- 
presses also  the  enjoyment  of  life,  compara- 
tive peace,  hopefulness,  and  security— security 
in  its  more  appropriate  sense,  freedom  from 
care,  not  from  danger.  [Melanchthon  speaks 
of  three  states:  of  security,  of  being  under 
the  law,  and  of  regeneration  ;  and  thinks  the 
first  state  was  the  one  here  described  by  Paul. 
Philippi  would  place  Paul's  Pharisaic  period 
in  the  second  status,  or  would  in  a  measure 
combine  the  first  two  together.  This  life-state 
apart  from  the  law  has  no  reference  to  child- 
hood. It  can  better  be  predicated  of  the  self- 
righteous,  who  are  living  at  ease,  whose  con- 
sciences are  at  rest,  and  who  are  satisfied  with 
themselves— like  the  young  ruler,  for  example, 
who  said:  "All  these  things  have  I  observed 
from  my  youth  up;  what  lack  I  yet?"  Saul 
tlie  Pharisee,  too,  was  thus  alive  when  he 
could  say  of  himself,  in  accordance  with  ordi- 
nary human  judgment :  ''Touching  the  right- 
eousness which  is  in  the  law,  found  blameless." 
See  Phil.  3 :  6,  Revised  Version.]  But  when 
the  commandment  came— to  me  person- 
ally, as  a  living  power.  (Heb.4:i2.)  Sin  re- 
vived, and  I  died.  [Not  simply  revived  as 
from  a  state  of  dormancy,  but  sprang  into  life 


as  from  a  state  of  death.     Stuart  renders: 
"gathered  new  life  "  ;  Meyer  :   "  came  to  life 
again"  (resumed  its   proper   living  nature), 
which,  in  his  view,  is  its  sole  meaning  through- 
out the  New  Testament.]    Before,  /  was  alive, 
and  .sin  was,  to  appearance,  dead.     Now  the 
case  is  reversed  :  Sin  came  to  life,  but  I  died. 
Sin  sprang  into  life  and  activity,  aroused  by 
the  prohibitory'  commandment.     But  I  died  ; 
I  lost  that  comfortable,  hopeful,  self-compla- 
cency, which  was  my  life  before.     If  'I  was 
living'    means   "I   was    enjoying  a  sort  of 
peace,    security,   and   hopefulness,"   then   'I 
died'  must  mean  "I  fell  into  trouble,  alarm, 
and  despondency.''     "The  death  of  sin  is  a 
man's   life,  and  the  life  of  sin   his   death." 
(Calvin.)     How  little  men  know  of  the  sin 
that  is  in  them,  .ill  the  commandment  comes! 
Preaching   should   be  adapted  to   bring  the 
commandment  home  to  the  unconverted.    ['  I 
died,'  according  to  Prof.  Turner,  "expresses 
a  consciousness  of  being  condemned,  and  in  a 
state  of    moral   and   penal   death."      Meyer 
regards  this  dying  as  the  incurring  of  eternal 
death.     Hence  in  his  view,  the  person  who 
was  alive  without  the  law  had  not  incurred 
this  death.     Prof.   Stuart  thinks  the  phrase 
'I  was  alive'  denotes  that  the  subject  was 
comparatively  inactive  in  sin,  or  was  not  des- 
perate in  sin,  and  explains  it  by  the  Saviours 
words:   "If  I  had  not  come  and  spoken  to 
them,  they  had  not  had  sin."  So,  in  his  view, 
'  I  died '  signifies  that  the  man  came  "  under 
the  active  and  predominating  power  and  pen- 
alty of  sin."     To  the  common  interpretation, 
"I  once  deemed  myself  spiritually  alive,  but 
when  I  came  under  conviction  by  the  law,  a 
sense  of  sin  revived   and   I  was  brought  to 
deem    myself   spiritually   dead,"    he    makes 
this  objection,   that    this  bringing  a    sinner 
under  real  and  true  conviction  as  to  his  des- 
perate spiritual  condition,  would   be  to  him 
the  means  of  life,  rather  than  of  death,  as  is 
stated  in  the  next  verse.     To  afiirm  that  the 
law  "  ruins  sinners  by  bringing  them  under  a 
senseof  their  guilt  and  condemnation, "would, 
he  says,  be  "a  singular  conclusion."     But  the 
apostle,  in  this  representation,  would  seem  to 
regard  the  law  as  the  only  Saviour,  the  only 
source  of  life  aud  help  and  hope.     And  on 


170 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  VII. 


10  And  the  commandiuent,  which  was  ordained  to  |  10  I  died;  and  the  commandment,  which  jca*  unto  life, 
life,  I  louud  to  be  unto  death.  11  this  I  found  to  be  unto  death:  for  sin,  finding  occa- 

11  For  sin,  takin„'  occasion  by  the  commandment,         sion,  through  the  commandment  beguilec  me,  and 
deceived  luc,  and  by  it  slew  me.  12  through  it  slew  me.    So  that  the  law  is  holy,  and 

12  Wherefore  the  law  w  holy,  and  the  commandment         the  commandment  holy,  and  righteous,  and  good, 
holy,  aud  just,  and  good.  j 


this  supposition  to  be  "  slain  by  the  law  "  (see 
ver.  11),  to  coine  to  a  vivid  consciousness  of 
condemnation,  of  desert  of  eternal  death,  and 
of  the  inability  of  the  law  to  efl'ect  his  deliv- 
erance, would  be  to  him  death  indeed,  were 
there  no  Christ  by  whom  he  could  be  made 
alive.  And  now  that  a  Saviour  is  provided, 
and  the  gospel's  otiers  made  known,  does  not 
the  convicted,  burdened,  lost  sinner,  who  in 
his  darkness  and  guilt  cannot  fipd  the  way  of 
life,  and  who  cries  out  in  anguish  for  days  or 
weeks  or  months,  it  may  be,  "  What  shall  I 
do  to  be  saved?"  experience  something  of 
the  misery  of  the  lost,  something  of  the  pains 
of  eternal  death?] 

10.  And  so,  not  something  new  and  addi- 
tional, but  the  same  truth  stated  with  change 
of  grammatical  subject:  The  command- 
ment,  which  was  ordained  to  life  (better, 
for  life — that  is, "meant  for  life,  and  tending  to 
life),  I  found  to  be  unto  death  ;  or,  'this 
was  found  to  be  to  me  for  death.'  This  is  the 
literal  translation  of  Paul's  language.  See 
the  proof  that  the  commandment  was  meant 
for  life  in  Lev.  18:  6;  Deut.  5:  33.  [The 
Common  Version  omits  the  emphatic  this 
(atirr),  not  r)  aiiTT),  the  Same)  very  coniniandynent 
loas  found,  or  proved  by  personal  experience, 
to  be  for  death.  The  very  disappointinent 
which  the  earnest  soul  of  Paul  felt,  when  he 
found  the  law  in  which  he  trusted  for  life  was 
only  the  means  of  death,  must  have  been  to 
him  as  death  itself.] 

11.  The  for  explains  how  that  came  to  pass 
which  the  preceding  verse  affirms.  For  sin, 
taking  [having  taken]  occasion.  On  the 
punctuation  of  this  verse,  and  the  connection 
of  the  clauses,  see  note  on  ver.  8.  By  the 
commandment,  deceived  me,  and  by  it 
(or  that)  slew  me.  ["Slain  by  the  law." 
Compare  2  Cor.  3:  6.  "The  letter  killeth." 
Every  one  made  alive  by  Christ  must  first  be 
slain  by  the  law — must  lie  at  the  Saviour's 
feet  as  dead.  When  the  commandment  came 
home  to  the  apostle's  heart  and  conscience  in 
all  its  obligatory  and  condemnatory  power, 
sin  gathered  new  life;  it  revived  and  he  died. 
So  whenever  this  law  work  takes   place  in 


the  sinner's  soul,  the  Spirit  discovers  to  him 
the  plague,  the  desperate  depravity  of  his 
heart,  his  carnal  hopes  are  slain,  and  his  mind 
is  filled  with  darkness,  anguish,  and  despair. 
In  such  a  state  as  this  he  suffers,  as  we  may 
suppose,  the  very  torments  of  hell.]  Com- 
pare 'I  died.'  (ver.9.)  There  seems  to  bean 
allusion  here  to  the  fall  of  our  first  parents: 
indeed,  the  verb  translated  'deceived'  is  pre- 
cisely the  same  as  is  found  in  the  Greek  trans- 
lation of  Gen.  3:  13,  where  the  English  reads 
'beguiled.'  Compare  2  Cor.  11:  3;  1  Tim. 
2:  14.  There,  as  here,  there  was  both  a  de- 
ceiving and  a  slaying;  and  both  by  means  of 
(or  through  the  intervention  of)  the  com- 
mandment. Sin  used  the  commandment  to 
make  that  aj^pear  desirable  to  me  which  was 
really  pernicious.  [This  would  be  the  natural 
result  of  a  prohibitory  commandment,  espe- 
cially since  "we  always  strive  for  the  for- 
bidden, and  desire  that  which  is  denied."] 
Sin  is  always  a  deceiver.  (Heb.  3:  is.)  It  always 
promises  more  pleasure  and  advantage  than 
it  gives.  (Gen.3: 5,  6.)  And  the  command- 
ment which  forbids  it  becomes  the  occasion  of 
increasing  the  deception;  because  it  makes 
the  seeming  good  greater  beforehand  by  the 
prohibition,  and  the  real  evil  greater  after- 
ward by  the  penalty. 

12.  Wherefore — better,  so  that,  since  it 
was  not  the  law  that  was  the  efficient  cause  of 
sin,  but  my  own  perversely  sinful  disposition, 
taking  occasion  from  the  law;  the  law  is 
holy,  and  the  commandment  holy — in  its 
source  and  nature,  and  just,  in  its  precepts 
and  penalty,  and  good,  in  its  design.  Observe 
how  conclusively  the  question  of  ver.  7  is 
answered  :  the  law,  so  far  from  being  sin  is 
wholly  and  emphatically  the  opposite.  [The 
antithetic  but  (Se)  corresponding  to  the  'in- 
deed' (^l■ev),  is  unexpressed,  but  is  virtually 
contained  in  the  next  verse  :  The  law  'indeed' 
is  good  (morally  excellent,  or  perhaps  bene- 
ficial, compare  the  'righteous'  and  'good'  of 
5 :  7),  but  sin  misuses  it  in  working  out  death  to 
me  by  that  (law)  which  is  good.  (Winer,  575.) 
The  commandment  here  characterized  doubt- 
less has  special  reference  to  that  mentioned  in 


Ch.  VII.] 


ROMANS. 


171 


13  Was  then  that  which  is  good  luadedeatli  unto  me? 
God  turbid.  But  sin,  thai  it  might  appear  siu,  worliing 
death  in  nie  liy  tliat  whicli  is  good  ;  that  sin  hy  the 
commaudmeut "might  become  exceeding  siulul. 


13  Lid  then  that  which  is  good  hecome  death  unto 
me?  God  forbid.  But  sin,  that  it  niiglit  be  sliewn 
to  be  sin,  by  working  death  to  me  through  that 
which  is  good; — that   througli    the   coniiuandment 

14  sin  might  become  exceeding  sinful.    For  we  know 


ver.  7,  '  Thou  shalt  not  covet.'  "  Were  the 
law  unjust  in  its  requirements  or  its  iienalties, 
it  were  no  merit  in  Jesus  that  he  died  to  honor 
it,  and  to  deliver  us  from  its  curse.  Nor  were 
it  any  mercy  in  God  to  grant  us  pardon  for 
its  tran.sgression.  As  it  is,  we  must  subscribe 
to  the  justice  of  God  in  our  condemnation." 
(Fuller.)  Chalmers,  speaking  of  tlie  good- 
ness of  the  law,  not  as  a  means  of  justificatioti, 
but  as  a  rule  of  moral  conduct,  says:  "You 
may  not  be  able  to  purchase  the  king's  favor 
with  gold;  but  he  maj' grant  you  his  favor, 
and,  when  he  requires  your  appearance  before 
him,  it  is  still  in  gold  he  msiy  require  you  to 
be  invested.  And  thus  of  the  law.  It  is  not 
by  your  own  righteous  conformity  thereto 
tliat  you  purchase  Gods  favor,  for  this  has 
been  already  purchased  by  the  pure  gold  of 
the  Saviour's  righteousness,  and  is  presented 
to  all  who  believe  on  him.  But  still  it  is  with 
your  own  personal  righteousness  that  you 
must  be  gilded  and  adorned.  It  is  not  the 
price  wherewith  you  have  bought  heaven,  but 
it  is  the  attire  in  which  you  must  enter  it."] 

13.  Was  then  that  which  is  good  made 
death  unto  me?  The  Revised  Version  is 
more  exact :  ''''Did  then  that  vihich  is  good  be- 
coyne  deatJiunto  me"  ?  ^  'Death,'  the  abstract, 
as  'sin.'  (ver.  7.)  Here,  as  there,  the  effect 
for  the  cause  :  is  the  law  the  cause  of  sin  ?  has 
that  which  is  good  become  to  me  the  cause  of 
death?  that  is,  the  efficient,  responsible  cause. 
God  forbid  Ifarbeit!  But  sin  has  becometo 
me  tlie  cause  of  death  :  in  order  that  it  might 
appear  sin,  in  order  that  it  might  be  seen  in 
its  true  malignity.  [He  does  not  saj- :  that  it 
might  be  sin,  since  sin  had  a  prior  existence.] 
The  word  'appear'  is  here  emphatic.  This 
manifestation  of  the  evil  nature  and  bitter 
consequence  of  sin,  in  turning  that  which  is 
good  into  an  occasion  of  death  [the  very 
worst  of  perversions],  working  death  in  {to) 
me  by  that  which  is  good— was  definitely 
ordained  by  God  ( '  in  order  that ' ),  as  a  neces- 
sary preparation  for  redemption.  That  {in 
order  that),  a  still  further  and  more  ultimate 
divine  purpose,  sin  by  {means  of )  the  com- 


mandment might  become  exceeding  sin- 
ful. The  word  translated  'exceeding' — that 
is,  'in  overmeasure '  [compare  1  Cor.  I'i:  31; 
2  Cor.  1:  8;  4:  17;  Gal.  1:  18],  is  the  word 
hyperbole,  the  technical  rhetorical  term  for 
exaggeration  in  speech.  It  might  well  be  ren- 
dered beyond  measure.  'Exceeding'  sinful 
may  have  been  strong  enough  at  the  time  our 
own  translators  used  it ;  but  it  has  been  so  toned 
down  by  frequent  use,  that  it  seems  too  tame 
now.  Tlie  word  translated  'sinful'  is  usually 
a  noun,  and  as  such  is  translated  sinner  more 
than  forty  times;  but  here,  and  in  three  other 

places  (Matt.  8:  38;  Luke  5 :  8 ;  24 :  7),   it    is  UScd  HS  an 

adjective.  Theophylact,  one  of  the  Greek 
commentators,  uses  this  illustration:  "Just 
as  a  disorder,  when  it  has  become  worse,  may 
be  said  to  display,  by  means  of  the  healing 
art,  its  malignity,  as  not  being  removed  even 
by  that." 

With  ver.  14  begins  a  section,  in  respect  to 
which  there  has  been  a  radical  difference  of 
opinion  among  the  ablest  commentators,  from 
ver3'  ancient  times.  Does  it  describe  the 
experience  of  a  regenerate  or  of  an  unregen- 
erate  man?  There  is  no  question  that  the 
preceding  section  (ver. 7-13),  applies  to  the  unre- 
generate.  And  very  many  able  commenta- 
tors, both  among  the  ancients  and  among  the 
moderns,  maintain  that  it  is  an  unregenerate 
experience  still  which  is  described  to  the  end 
of  the  chapter.  It  will  suffice  to  mention  the 
names  of  Theodoret,  Julius  Miiller,  Neander, 
Tholuck,  Ewald,  and  Meyer.  [We  may  add 
the  names  of  Bengel,  Hahn,  Hengstenberg, 
Nitzsch,  Eackert,  De  Wette,  Stier,  Kahnis, 
Godet,  Olshausen,  Wordsworth,  Turner,  Rid- 
dle, Schaff,  Stuart.  Olshausen  and  Turner 
would  make  ver.  25  begin  a  new  experience 
and  new  chapter.  Many  of  the  writers  named 
suppose  that  Paul's  description  has  reference 
to  the  unregenerate,  not  as  in  a  state  of  secur- 
ity, but  as  an  awakened  sinner.  The  "Bible 
Commentary  "  says:  inter regenerandum,  dur- 
ing the  process  of  regeneration.  Of  the  writers 
above  named,  Meyer  is  perhaps  the  most 
determined  opponent  of  the  view  maintained 


» Instead  of  the  perfect  tense,  the  oldest  MSS.  K  A  BC  D  E  give  the  verb  in  the  aorist,  e-yeveTo.— (F.) 


172 


ROxMANS. 


[Ch.  VII. 


14  For  we  know  that  the  law  is  spiritual :  but  I  am 
carnal,  sold  uuder  sin. 


that  the  law  is  spiritual :  but  I  am  carnal,  sold  under 


in  this  comineiitiiry.]  On  the  other  hand,  it 
has  seemed  to  many  scholars,  that  the  change 
of  tense  in  the  verbs,  from  the  past  to  the 
present,  in  ver.  14  and  onward,  indicates  a 
difl'erent  date  and  phase  of  religious  experi- 
ence from  the  preceding,  and  that  what  is 
said  from  this  point  is  rightly  interpreted  as 
the  experience  of  a  regenerate  man.  This 
view  is  defended  by  Jerome,  Augustine  (both 
of  whom,  however,  originally  held  theopposite 
view),  Melanchthon,  Calvin,  Beza,  Krum- 
macher,  Delitzsch,  Luthardt,  and  others. 
[Among  these  "others,"  we  may  mention  the 
names  of  Luther,  Chalmers,  Brown,  Haldane, 
Forbes,  Philippi,  Umbreit,  Hofmann,  Tho- 
masius,  Alford  (substantially'),  Hodge,  Shedd, 
Barnes,  Boise.  Accordingto  Augustine's  state- 
ment, his  change  of  views  was  owing  to  the 
writings  of  "Hilary,  Gregory,  Ambrose,  and 
other  holy  and  known  doctors  of  the  church," 
and  thus  was  not  due  simply  to  his  "warm 
dispute"  with  Pelagius.  And  Prof.  Stuart's 
statement  that  "  Augustine  was  the  first  who 
suggests  the  idea  that  this  passage  must  be 
applied  to  Christian  experience"  would  ap- 
pear to  be  incorrect.]  This  view  is  adopted 
by  the  writer  of  these  notes.  For  a  fuller 
discussion  of  this  difficult  question,  see  Ap- 
pendix D. 

It  should  be  here  remembered,  however, 
that  those  who  adopt  this  view  do  not  by  any 
means  regard  these  verses  as  designed  to  de- 
scribe the  normal  experience  of  the  Christian 
life,'  but  only  that  phase  of  it  which  comes  to 
view,  when  the  regenerate  man  allows  himself 
to  regard  mainly  his  relations  to  the  moral 
law,  instead  of  looking  to  Christ  as  his  surety 
and  his  righteousness.  They  believe  that,  as 
it  was  the  design  of  the  previous  section  (ver.  7-i3) 
to  show  how  powerless  the  law  is  to  convert  a 
sinner,  so  it  is  the  design  of  this  section  (ver. 
i»  25)  to  show  that  the  law  is  equally  power- 
less to  enable  the  regenerate  man  to  over- 
come sin. 

[The  apostle  in  this  secflon  (ver.  i4-2.i)  repre- 
sents the  Christian  as  looking  on  and  in  him- 


self, and  comparing  his  thoughts  and  deeds 
with  those  which  the  perfect  law  of  God  re- 
quires. Hence  the  most  advanced  Christian, 
tried  by  this  perfect  standard,  will  be,  and  will 
feel  himself  to  be,  condemned  and  lost.  His 
language  will  be  :  "  With  my  mind  I  myself 
do  indeed  serve  the  law  of  G.od,  but  with  the 
flesh  the  law  of  sin,  and  only  in  Christ  Jesus 
is  there  freedom  from  condemnation."  See 
ver.  25,  and  8 :  1.  From  this  point  of  view  we 
may  say,  not  only  that  "  the  law  is  powerless 
to  enable  the  regenerate  man  to  overcome  sin," 
but  that  grace  will  not  so  sanctify  our  natures 
thatweshail  not  need  to  be  sheltered  in  Christ, 
in  order  to  be  justified  and  saved.  Through 
Jesus  Christ,  who  is  "  the  Lord,  our  righteous- 
ness," do  we  give  thanks  to  God  for  our  deliver- 
ance both  from  condemnation  and  from  the 
reigningpower  of  sin.  Philippi  saysthat  in  the 
two  passages  (7:  u-25: 8:  i-u)  "are  pictured  the 
two  aspects  ever  appearing  in  mutual  connec- 
tion, of  one  and  the  same  spiritual  status,  so 
that  the  regenerate  man,  according  as  his 
glance  is  directed  to  the  one  or  the  other 
aspect,  is  able  to  affirm  both  of  himself  at 
every  moment;  as  well  what  is  said  in  7 :  23 
as  what  is  said  in  8  :  2.  Hence  also  ever  rises 
from  his  heart  with  equal  truth  the  twofold 
cry,  as  well :  '  Oh,  wretched  man,'  as  'I  thank 
God.'"] 

14.  For  Ave  know.  The  'for'  is  explana- 
tory of  the  relative  positions  of  sin  and  the 
law  [and  introduces,  virtually',  a  proof  of  the 
intrinsic  excellence  of  the  law  as  drawn  from 
Christian  experience.  None  but  the  regen- 
erate have  this  kind  and  degree  of  knowl- 
edge]. '  We  know,'  it  is  with  us  an  understood 
and  acknowledged  principle,  as  in  2  :  2 ;  3  :  19. 
That  the  laAV  is  spiritual,  as  being  from 
God,  who  is  spirit,  and  as  requiring  of  men 
spiritual  purity.  [It  being  spiritual  in  its 
nature  also  concerns  itself  not  merely'  with 
outward  acts,  but  with  "the  thoughts  and 
intents  of  the  heart."  Its  language  is:  Thou 
shalt  nc;t '■-Jejei,  shalt  not  indulge  in  "inordi- 
nate desires  and  sinful  affections."     "Civil 


1  Yet  Philippi  says  that  even  the  "  normal  condition  " 
will  allow  the  carnal  principle  to  break  out  in  word  and 
deed,  and  come  to  open  manifestation,  though  these 
■will  only  be  moments  of  ignorance,  feebleness,  and 
rashness,  to  which  the  innermost  will  of  man  refuses 


its  assent,  with  which  he  stands  in  no  alliance,  and  to 
which  he  does  not  yield  an  unregretted  and  undisputed 
dominion.  In  this  connection,  compare  Eph.  4:  22; 
Col.  3:5;  Heb.  12 :  1.— (F.) 


Ch.  VII  ] 


ROMANS. 


173 


law  judges  but  the  act.  .  .  .  Only  the  re- 
vealed Numos,  just  because  it  is  spiritual, 
judges  even  the  evil  desire  and  inclination 
itself."  (Thilippi.)]  But  I  am  carnal. 
There  are  two  Greek  adjectives,  both  derived 
from  the  Greek  noun,  meaning  Jiesh  (<ropf), 
and  differing  in  form  only  by  a  single  letter 
and  the  position  of  the  accent,  yet  differing 
widely  in  sense;  one  is  sarkinos  (<rdp/<icos),  the 
other  sarkikos  (<rap<c«os).  The  tirst  means, 
properly,  "consisting  of  the  material,  sarx," 
fleshy  [or  "fleshen,"  as  Farrarhas  it]  (Latin, 
carneus,  from  cariie  flesh) ;  the  second  means 
"partaking  of  the  quality,  sar.x,"  fleshy 
(Latin,  carnalis).  The  first  is,  without  dis- 
pute, the  word  used  in  1  Cur.  3:3,  "not  in 
tables  of  stone,  but  in  fleshy  tables  of  the 
heart."  The  second  is  no  less  certainly  the 
word  used  in  Kom.  15  :  27 ;  1  Cor.  9  :  11.  It  is 
not  strange  that  words  so  nearly  alike  in  form 
should  sometimes  be  confounded  with  each 
otlier  in  manuscripts.  Out  of  about  a  dozen 
places  where  one  or  the  other  occurs,  there 
are  five  places  where  the  readings  of  different 
manuscripts  are  divided  between  the  two,  and 
there  is  only  the  one  place,  already  cited 
(2  Cor. 3:3),  where  all  the  manuscripts  unite  on 
the  former  of  the  two  words.  lit  the  passage 
now  before  us,  while  the  text  used  by  our 
translators  had  the  latter  of  these  words,  the 
best  critical  editions,  ft)llowing  the  oldest 
manuscripts  [N  A  B  C  D  E  F  G],  now  have  the 
former.  And  the  same  is  true  of  1  Cor.  3  : 1 
and  Hob.  7  :  16.  Meyer  [and  so  Alford]  re- 
gards the  Word  sarkinos  as  the  stronger  of  the 
two  [but  Trench  and  Farrar  as  the  weaker] 
in  this  connection,  and  derives  from  it,  as 
such,  a  special  argument  against  the  applica- 
tion of  it  to  tiie  regenerate.  [He  says  :  "This 
is  the  Pauline  expression  of  Uhat  which  is 
born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh.' "  (Johu3:6.)  He  also 
maintains,  as  a  very  strong  argument  in  favor 
of  his  view,  that  the  work  of  the  Spirit,  so 
often  referred  to  in  the  next  chapter,  is  not 
mentioned  in  this  entire  section  (only  in  ver. 
6),  and  the  flesh  is  here  represented,  not  as 
warring  against  the  Spirit,  as  is  the  case  with 
the  regenerate  (Gai.5;i7),  but  only  against  the 
person's  own  weak  mind  or  inner  man.  There 
would  be  much  force  in  this  argument  if 
the  person  in  question  was  represented  as  a 
psycldcal  or  natural  man,  for  such  have  not 
the  Spirit  and  cannot  receive  the  things  of 


the  Spirit.  But  the  inner  man  here  spoken 
of  has  rather  the  character  of  the  new  man 
than  of  the  old  or  natural  man.  Does  not  this 
person,  in  his  mind  or  inner  man,  discern 
and  approve  (see  1 :  28;  2  :  18;  14  :  22)  what  is 
the  good  and  acceptable  and  perfect  will  of 
God?  But  this  is  precisely  the  characteristic 
of  the  renewed  mind.  (12:2.)  "To  suppose 
that  the  unrenewed  in  mind  can  have  tlie 
gracious  purpose,  will,  and  feelings  mentioned 
in  this  passage,  is  to  suppose  that  something 
besides  flesh  is  born  of  the  flesh."  (Pliiliiipi.) 
If  hatred  of  sin,  delighting  in  God,  and  the 
fixed  will  to  do  right  are  to  be  looked  upon 
as  fruits  of  the  flesh  (Gai.  5:20)  and  not  of  the 
Spirit,  we  must  utterly  despair  of  understand- 
ing the  Pauline  theology.]  But  it  is  just  this 
form  of  the  word  (o-ookh'os),  according  to  the 
best  authorities,  which  is  applied  in  1  Cor.  3: 1 
to  those  whom  Paul  there  addresses  as  breth- 
ren, and  expressly  recognizes  as  being  in 
Christ,  though  but  babes  in  him.  [Thus  a 
Christian  may,  in  one  sense,  be  carnal  or 
rather  fleshen,  but  nut  carnally  minded.  Com- 
pare also  Heb.  7  :  16,  where  the  commandment 
is  called  fleshen  and  is  not  degraded  by  the 
word  ((TopKiKos)  carnal.]  Sold  under  sin. 
[Literally,  having  been  sold  to  sin,  and  re- 
maining still  under  bondage  to  it  or  under 
its  power.  From  ver.  22-25,  we  learn  that 
this  man,  along  with  the  enforced,  unwilling 
service  which  he  in  his  lower  nature  renders 
to  sin,  also  serves  with  his  mind  the  law  of 
God;  yea,  even  delights  in  that  law  and 
wishes  to  do  only  that  which  is  good.  He 
detests  any  service  to  sin,  and  exclaims:  "It 
is  no  longer  I  that  do  it."  Blessed,  methinks, 
is  any  person  who  can  truly  say  this,  even 
though  he  himself  may  crj'  out  at  times:  "O 
wretched  man  that  I  am !"]  This  expression, 
'sold  under  sin,'  is  the  most  difficult  one  in 
this  whole  passage  to  reconcile  witli  the  appli- 
cation of  it  to  the  regenerate.  Feeling  the 
full  force  of  the  objection,  I  yet  cannot  regard 
it  as  sufficient  to  negative  the  force  of  all  the 
considerations  in  favor  of  applying  this  part 
of  the  passage  to  the  regenerate.  These  con- 
siderations are  presented  more  fully  in  the 
Appendix  already  referred  to.  [In  order  to 
interpret  rightly  the  above  expression,  we 
must  know  to  whom  it  relates.  We  might 
conceive  of  some  deeply-dyed  transgressor, 
awakened,  like  Judas,  to  a  regretful  conscious- 


174 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  VII. 


ness  of  his  damning  iniquity,  heaping  upon 
himself  "sins  infinite  upon  infinite,  infinite 
upon  infinite;"  but  these  words  were,  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  the  confession  of  the  elder 
Edwards,  the  holiest  man,  perhaps,  of  modern 
Christendom.  And  in  this  style  of  self-re- 
proach and  abasement  the  saints  of  God  have 
ever  been  wont  to  express  their  sense  of  short- 
comings and  unworthiness.  Dclitzsch  remarks 
that  the  spiritually-minded  man  feels  most 
acutely  and  profoundly  that  he  has  still  in 
himself  a  carnal  nature,  and  cannot  ransom 
himself  entirely  from  the  power  of  sin,  and 
by  the  very  fact  of  his  accusing  himself  in 
daily  repentance  a.s,  fleshen.  he  shows  himself 
to  be,  as  to  the  fundamental  tendency  of  his 
personality,  spiritual.  Prof.  Stuart  maintains 
that  the  phraseology  of  this  chapter  can,  with 
perhaps  some  slight  modification,  be  applied 
either  to  the  regenerate  or  unregenerate,  and 
he  would  modify  those  expressions  which 
seemingly  imply  the  existence  of  grace  in  the 
heart.  We  maintain,  with  Dr.  Arnold  (see 
Appendix  referred  to),  that  if  any  of  these 
expressions  of  the  apostle  are  to  be  modified, 
it  should  be  those  which  charge  himself  with 
sin.  We  also  maintain  that  many  of  these 
expressions,  even  when  modified,  cannot  be 
applied  to  an  unregenerate  person  without 
antagonizing  and  overthrowing  all  of  Paul's 
teaching  in  regard  to  man's  lost  and  guilty 
state  by  nature.  We  think  that  Paul  himself 
has  sufiUciently  modified  his  own  statements 
when  he  distinguishes  his  fleshen  self  (me — 
that  is,  my  flesh),  which  hinders  him  from 
doing  what  he  would  and  forces  him  to  do 
what  he  hates,  and  which  is  under  bondage  to 
sin,  from  his  proper  self,  his  mind,  his  inner 
man,  which  hates  sin,  and  has  delight  in  God 
and  serves  his  law.  We  hold  that  the  v/hole 
bent  of  his  mind  is  toward  God,  and"  that, 
instead  of  succumbing  to  sin  "in  every  in- 
stance of  contest,"  as  Prof.  Stuart  maintains, 
his  real  self,  his  mind  or  inner  man,  never  in 
any  instance  j'ields  to  sin.  Any  such  yield- 
ing must  be  predicated  of  his  fleshen  self,  or 
his  complex  self.  "  It  is  no  longer  I  that  do 
it."  Is  such  a  dividing  up  of  the  human  or 
Christian  self  a  contradiction  and  a  riddle? 
What  is  man  in  his  "best  state"  but  a  con- 
tradiction and  a  riddle?  I  wonder  how  any 
Christian,  conversant  with  his  own  heart,  can 
question  the  applicability  to  himself  of  the 


apostle's  description  of  the  "remainders"  of 
the  sinful  principle  pr  habit  in  our  fleshen 
natures.  "There  have  been  endless  discus- 
sions," says  Farrar,  "as  to  whether  Paul  is 
speaking  of  himself  or  of  others ;  whether  he 
has  in  view  the  regenerate  or  the  unregen- 
erate man.  Let  even  good  men  look  into 
their  own  hearts  and  answer."  De  Wette,  on 
ver.  25,  says:  That  "in  the  man  who  is  born 
again  no  serving  the  law  of  sin  through  the 
flesh  can  find  place."  I  grant  that  the  real 
"I  myself"  of  the  Christian  cannot  be  said  to 
serve  the  law  of  sin — certainly  not  as  a  full 
description  of  his  heart  and  life.  But  if  the 
regenerate  have  not  a  fleshen  self,  which  does 
in  a  measure,  or  does  at  times,  serve  the  law 
of  sin,  we  must  think  there  is  not  a  single 
regenerate  man  on  earth.  But  let  us  see  what 
is  not  ascribed  to  the  person  here  represented. 
He  is  not  described  as  being  a  psychical  or 
natural  man,  who  has  not  the  Spirit  and  re- 
ceives not  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God. 
(judei9;  1  Cor.  2:u.)  He  is  not  Said  to  live  or 
walk  according  to  the  flesh,  or  to  fulfill  the 
lust  of  the  flesh.  His  mind  is  not  vain,  de- 
filed, reprobate  (Eph.  4  :  n  ;  Tims  1  :  15  ;  Rom.  1  :  28)  ;    a 

mind  of  the  flesh  (Coi.  2ti8);  a  carnal  mind 
which  is  enmity  against  God.  (Rom. 8:7.)  In- 
stead of  hating  God,  he  hates  only  sin,  and 
his  will  is  to  serve  God.  "  The  real  ego  of  the 
man  is  presented  before  us,  on  the  one  hand, 
entirely  separate  from  sin  and  opposed  to  it, 
and,  on  the  other,  harmoniously  united  and 
bound  up  with  the  spiritual  law  of  God.  But 
manifestly  only  the  ruling,  not  the  inferior, 
part  of  man's  nature  can  be  described  as  the 
real  ego."  (Philippi.)  Of  course,  we  do  not 
read  that  he  is  in  a  state  of  condemnation, 
and  that  the  wrath  of  God  is  abiding  on  him. 
Let  us  also  look  at  the  next  chapter,  where  the 
man  (now  certainly  the  regenerated  Paul) 
has  been  released,  as  is  commonly  supposed, 
from  his  former  miserable  dualism,  has  ob- 
tained deliverance  from  the  law  of  sin  and  of 
death,  and  has  experienced  "sanctification." 
But  we  find  even  here  that  his  deliverance 
is  still  incomplete,  that  his  groaning  is  not 
wholly  a  thing  of  the  past.  The  flesh  still 
presents  its  claims  (ver.  12);  he  is  compassed 
with  infirmity  (ver.  26);  has  not  fully  realized 
the  great  salvation,  is  saved  in  hope  (ver.  24). 
the  body  is  not  fully  redeemed  from  the 
bondage  of  sin,  and,  though  he  has  the  first 


Ch.  VIL] 


ROMANS. 


175 


fruits  of  the  Spirit,  the  groaning  within  him- 
self continues  (ver.  m)  ;  yea,  a  groaning  at  times 
too  deep  and  great  for  utterance  in  words, 
(ver.  26.)  It  is  iiiMrvelous  how  this  eighth 
chapter  is  contrasted  by  some  persons  with 
the  seventh,  as  exhibiting  a  perfectly  sancti- 
fied believer.  Elsewhere,  Paul  speaks  of  the 
Christian  life  as  an  agonistic  strife,  a  warfare, 
and  we  have  every  reason  to  suppose  that  he 
had  the  same  contest  with  flesh  and  sin  that 
we  have.  He  could  say  to  the  Galatians 
(3:17),  from  his  own  experience,  that  the  flesh 
lusteth  against  the  Spirit,  and  the  Spirit 
against  the  flesh,  and  that  these  are  contrary 
the  one  to  the  other,  thus  hindering  him  from 
doing  the  things  that  he  would.  A  short  time 
before  writing  this  letter  to  the  Romans,  he 
tells  his  Corinthian  bretliren  of  his  groaning, 
in  common  with  other  Christians,  under  the 
weight  of  the  fleshly  tabernacle  (^Cor.  5:4),  and 
in  1  Cor.  9:  27,  we  see  him  both  as  a  combatant 
and  a  herald  in  the  Christian  race,  buffeting 
or  bruising  his  own  body,  beating  it  black 
and  blue,  and  bringing  it  into  subjection. 
We  suppose  that  Paul,  with  all  his  trials 
within  and  without,  was  in  general  a  joyful 
Christian,  trusting  wholly  in  Christ,  walking 
in  the  Spirit,  and  yielding  but  rarely,  if  ever, 
to  the  inordinate  demands  of  the  lower  nature. 
Yet  any  hindrance  which  the  law  in  his  mem- 
bers interjiosed  to  his  desired  obedience  to  the 
law  of  the  Spirit  would  be  deemed  by  him  a 
heavy  bondage.  And  may  we  not  suppose 
that  there  were  times  in  his  religious  experi- 
ence, as  in  ours,  of  special  temptation  and 
depression,  when  his  heart  became,  as  it  were, 
a  battle  ground  where  Christ  and  Satan  strove 
for  the  ma-tery.  Our  Saviour,  we  know,  was 
led  from  the  joys  of  bis  baptism  to  the  sore 
temptation  of  the  desert.  Thus  in  this  world 
seasons  of  unusual  mental  or  spiritual  eleva- 
tion are  often  followed  by  a  corresponding 
depression.  And  we  have  sometimes  imag- 
ined that  Paul,  soon  after  his  conversion  and 
baptism,  was  led  or  driven  bj'  the  Spirit  into 
the  wilderness  of  Arabia,  and  that  there  be 
sat  literally  at  the  foot  of  Sinai  and  listened 
with  anguish  of  soul  to  its  condemning  thun- 
der; that  there,  in  good  measure,  took  place 
the  great  revulsion  of  his  views  and  feelings 
in  regard  to  the  law  and  its  chiefest  ordi- 
nances; that  there  he  learned  fully  to  un-.Tcw 
himself,  as  it  were,  so  that  we  never  think  of  I 


him  as  being  a  Jew;  and  that  there,  in  fine, 
he  learned  that  only,  "in  Christ"  is  there 
justification,  redemption,  and  eternal  life  for 
a  lost  sinner.  Certain  it  is  that  many  Chris- 
tians virtually  pass  a  considerable  part  of 
their  lives  near  this  awful  burning  mount, 
with  one  eye,  indeed,  directed  to  Calvary,  a 
look  which  saves  them  from  despair.  "  Every 
Christian,"  says  Delitzsch,  "is  compelled  to 
confirm  what  the  apostle  here  says  from  his 
own  personal  experience."  And  Dr.  Scbaft", 
who  regards  this  passage  as  descriptive  of  a 
state  of  awakening,  says:  "Thus  much,  how- 
ever, must  be  conceded  to  the  Augustinian 
view  that  this  contest  is  repeated  in  a  modified 
form  in  the  regenerate.  So  long  as  they  are 
in  the  flesh,  the  old  life  of  Adam  rules  beside 
the  new  life  in  Christ.  Temptations  from  the 
world,  assaults  of  Satan,  disturb;  not  unfre- 
quently  sin  overcomes,  and  the  believer,  feel- 
ing deeply  and  painfully  his  own  helplessness, 
turns  in  penitence  to  Christ's  grace,  to  be  the 
victor  at  last." 

There  are  certain  special  objections  of  con- 
siderable apparent  force  which  are  urged 
against  the  view  we  have  taken.  Those  men- 
tioned by  Godet  are  in  substance  chiefly  as 
follows:  that  in  this  chapter  there  is  no 
marked  and  obvious  point  of  transition,  indi- 
cating the  profound  change  from  the  Phari- 
saic state  to  the  state  of  grace,  no  such  sharp 
contrast  in  the  description  of  these  two  states 
as  there  is  in  the  delineation  of  chapter  7  and 
that  of  chapter  8,  but  all  proceeds,  as  it  were, 
on  the  same  level,  and  the  difference  between 
Pharisee  and  Christian  is  much  less  marked 
than  that  between  Christian  and  Christian; 
that  Paul  in  ver.  14-25  has  avoided  all  mention 
of  the  Spirit's  aid,  and  made  use  only  of  terms 
denoting  the  natural  faculties  of  the  human 
soul,  as  mind,  etc.  ;  and  in  general  that  our 
view  finds  in  the  gospel  a  more  burdensome 
law  than  that  of  Sinai  itself  Still,  if  the 
statements  advanced  in  this  commentarj-  here 
and  elsewhere  can  be  substantiated,  these 
objections  will  go  for  nothing  or  be  so  ex- 
plained as  to  lose  their  importance.  As  some 
of  these  objections  will  be  noticed  further  on, 
we  will  here  simply  say,  1.  That  the  gospel 
furnishes  no  exemption  from  a  persistent, 
bitter  contest  and  struggle  against  Satan,  self, 
and  the  world:  and  that  the  most  devoted 
Christian,   if  he  knows  his  own   heart,  will 


176 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  VII. 


15  For  that  which   I   do,   I   allow   not:    for  what   I 
would,  that  do  I  uot;  but  what  I  hate,  that  do  I. 

16  If  then  I  do  that  which  I  would   uot,  I  consent 
unto  the  law  that  U  is  good. 

17  Now  then  it  is  uo  more  I  that  do  it,  but  sin  that 
dwelleth  in  me. 


15  sin.     For  that  which  I  '  do  I  know  not:   for  not 

what  I  would,  that  do  I  practise;  but  what  I  hale, 

Ki  that   I  do.    But  if  what  I  would  uot,  that  1  do,  I 

17  consent  unto  the  law  that  it  is  good.    So  now  it  is  no 

more  I  that  ido  it,  but  sin  which  dwelleth  in  me. 


confess  perpetual  shortcomings  in  thought, 
word,  and  life,  as  also  frequent  failures  and 
defeats:  2.  That  there  is,  as  we  have  seen,  no 
such  sharp  contrast  in  the  description  of  man's 
present  spiritual  state  in  chapters  7  and  8,  as 
is  sometimes  supposed  :  3.  That  if  it  was  Paul's 
design  to  show  that  by  the  law  of  works, 
whether  legal  or  gracious,  no  flesh  could  be 
justified  and  saved,  then  there  would  natur- 
ally be  a  certain  uniformity  of  thought  and 
style  in  the  discussion  of  the  tlieme:  And  4. 
That  we  can  find  quite  plainly  indicated  in 
this  chapter  the  end  of  the  legal  and  the 
beginning  of  tlie  gracious  state,  it  being  a 
well  understood  matter  that  when  the  sinner 
is  slain  by  the  law  and  is  left  at  Ciirist's  feet 
as  dead  (ver.  n-i3),  he  is  made  alive  by  the 
Lord  and  Giver  of  life.] 

15.  The  struggle  here  begins  between  the 
two  dispositions  within,  not  merely  with  the 
law  without.  [How  great  is  the  evil  of  sin 
which  has  wrought  such  deep-soated  schism 
and  discord  in  the  soul,  and  which  leads  even 
the  regenerate  and  redeemed  man  within  him- 
self to  groan  and  sigh,  and  even  to  exclaim 
at  times:  "O  wretched  man  that  I  am!" 
And  how  blinded  are  they  who  do  not  feel 
this  desperate  depravity  of  their  hearts!]  For 
introduces  the  proof  of  the  last  clause,  'sold 
under  sin.'  That  which  I  do,  I  allow  not. 
Know  is  better  than  '  allow,'  not  only  as  being 
more  literal,  but  because  the  not  allowing 
what  is  performed  is  implied  in  the  next 
clauses,  and  still  further,  because  'I  know 
not'  expresses  just  that  perturbed  state  of 
mind  which  seems  designed  to  be  expressed, 
as  we  sometimes  say,  "I  do  not  know  how  I 
came  to  do  it."  ["The  regenerate  man  sins 
not  consciously  and  willingly,  .  .  .  His  better 
ego  knows  nothing  of  this  act  of  his  sinful 
nature.  From  this  it  certainly  follmrs,  of 
course,  that  this  higher  self  does  not  acknowl- 
edge and  approve  such  an  act."  (Philippi.)] 
The  second  for  introduces  the  explanation  of 
the  way  in  which  that  which  is  affirmed  in  the 
preceding  clause  came  to  pass.  For  what  I 
would,  that  do  I  not;  but  what  I  hate. 


that  I  do.  The  Greek  might  be  rendered 
thus  :  For  not  what  I  ivish,  that  do  I  practise ; 
but  what  I  hate,  this  Ido.  [The  negative  (o"), 
placed  at  the  beginning  partly  perhaps  for 
the  sake  of  emphasis,  properly  negatives,  as 
in  ver.  19,  not  the  nearer  but  the  remoter 
verb,  thus:  'for  what  1  would,  that  do  I  not.' 
What  he,  the  better  self,  wills  and  hates  is 
specified  below  as  good  and  evil.  The  verb  to 
will  or  wish  (fleAio)  is  here  regarded  by  Godet, 
Alford,  and  others,  as  simply  expressive  of 
desire,  or  what  one  would  like.  It  is  doubt- 
less sometimes  used  with  this  sense.  EUicott 
says  :  "  The  distinction  that  boidomai  (/SoOAojiai) 
is  confined  to  the  inclination,  ethelo  (eeeAw  or 
Oikfa)  to  that  kind  of  wish  in  which  there  lies 
9.  purpose  OT  design  does  not  seem  generally 
applicable  to  the  New  Testament  (see  Matt. 
1:  19),  and  probably  not  always  in  classical 
Greek."  The  will.,  however,  is  here  as  ener- 
getic as  the  hate,  and  is  a  result  of  the  divine 
invvorking.  See  Phil.  2:  13.  Compare  what 
is  said  on  9:  19,  respecting  the  use  of  these 
verbs.] 

16.  If  then  I  do  that  which  I  would 
not,  I  consent  unto  the  law  that  it  is 
good.  This  ma3' be  translated  :  But  if  what 
I  do  not  wish  this  Ido,  I  agree  with  the  law  that 
it  is  good.  The  law  and  my  wish  tend  the  same 
vfny.  [Good—kalos  (koAos) — morally  beauti- 
ful and  excellent.  Prof  Cremer  saj-s:  "It  is 
related  to  agathos  (ivaeos),  good,  as  the  appear- 
ance to  the  essence.  ...  It  is  not  merely  what 
is  morally  good  and  right,  but  also  what 
recommends  itself  by  its  outward  appear- 
ance."] "The  assent  of  a  man,  given  to  the 
law  against  himself,  is  an  illustrious  trait  of 
true  religion,  a  powerful  testimony  for  God." 
(Bengel.) 

17.  Now  and  no  more  denote  a  logical, 
not  a  chronological  sequence.  Compare  ver. 
20,  and  11 :  6.  Notv  then  it  is  no  longer  I  that 
perforin  it.  See  Revised  Version.  [A  very 
few  expositors  take  one  or  both  the  abverbs 
in  a  temporal  sense,  pointing  back  to  a  time 
in  which  it  was  otherwise  with  the  speaker. 
So  Hofmann :  but  now  no  longer  do  I  perform 


Ch.  VIL] 


ROMANS. 


177 


18  For  I  know  that  in  nie  (that  is,  in  my  flesh,) 
dwellelh  no  good  thing:  lor  to  will  is  present  with  me; 
but  /ww  to  perl'orui  that  which  is  good  I  tind  not. 


18  For  I  know  that  in  nie,  that  is,  in  my  flesh,  dwell- 
elh no  good  thing:  lor  to  will  is  present  with  me 


it,  etc.,  which  is  the  literal  rendering.  The  /, 
expressed  in  the  Greek,  is  strongly  empliatic] 
The  /  here  is  equivalent  to  the  inward  man  of 
ver.  'I'l.  The  apostle  does  not  mean  to  deny 
responsibility:  but  his  language,  in  both  this 
and  the  preceding  verse,  implies  that  his  per- 
sonality as  a  whole  does  not  consent  to  sin. 
God  has  planted  the  passions  in  our  nature; 
but  ho  has  also  given  us  the  inward  man  to 
control  them.  ["He  can  pay  no  highertribute 
to  the  dignity  of  the  Christian's  position  than 
when  he  says:  It  is  not /that  sin."  (Philippi.) 
"With  this,  the  true  and  real  /,  he  proceeds  at 
once  to  contrast  the  lower  and  fleshen  "me" 
in  which  sin  dwells  and  in  which  good  does 
not  dwell.  Yet  in  the  spirit  of  true  Christian 
penitence  and  humility  he  does  not  care,  when 
speaking  of  his  sin,  to  say  that  this  "me"  in 
which  sin  has  its  hofne  is  only  "  my  flesh." 
He  makes  this  express  distinction  only  when, 
as  in  the  next  verse,  he  would  not  ignore  the 
grace  of  God  which  was  in  him.]  But  sin 
that  dwelleth  in  me  [whence thephrase  "in- 
dwelling sin."  Indeed,  the  uncials  X  B  have 
tlie  compound  participle,  indwelling].  "Sin 
has  taken  up  its  abode  in  me  as  an  unlawful 
settler."  (Olshausen.)  This  is  not  said  as  an 
exculpation;  but  to  exhibit  the  power  of  in- 
dwelling sin.  It  is  not  only  consistent  with 
acknowledgment  of  responsibility,  but  is 
always  united  with  self-condemnation  and 
penitence.  [Dr.  Hodge  remarks  that  "  this  doc- 
trine of  sin  as  indwelling  is  irreconcilable  with 
the  assumption  that  sin  consists  exclusively  in 
acts  of  the  will,  or  even,  in  the  widest  sense 
of  the  term,  in  voluntary  action.  An  indwel- 
ing  act  is  a  solecism.  Sin  in  this,  as  in  so 
many  other  places  of  Scripture,  is  presented 
as  an  abiding  state  of  the  mind,  a  disposi- 
tion, or  principle,  manifesting  itself  in  acts." 
Thomas  Scott  says,  that  this  "  energetic  lan- 
guage "  of  the  apo.stle  "seems  to  have  re- 
sulted from  the  extraordinary  degree  of  St. 
Paul's  sanctification,  and  the  depth  of  his 
self-abasement  and  hatred  of  sin  ;  and  the 
reason  of  our  not  readily  understanding  him 
seems  to  be,  because  we  are  so  far  beneath 


him  in  holiness,  humility,  acquaintance  with 
the  spirituality  of  God's  law,  and  the  evil  of 
our  own  hearts."] 

18.  For  I  know  [from  personal  experience] 
introduces  the  explanation  of  the  clause  last 
preceding,  'sin  tliat  dwelleth  in  me.'  That 
in  me  dwelleth— better,  that  there  du)e lis  not 
in  me :  the  me  is  here  explained  to  mean  the 
lower  carnal  self,  that  is,  in  my  flesh. 
[This  fleshen  self  supposes  here  the  existence 
of  the  correlative  pneumatic  ego,  a  spiritual 
self]  Perhaps  this  explanation  is  added  be- 
cause of  the  opposite  use  of  /,  in  the  preceding 
verse,  for  the  better  self  Be  that  as  it  may, 
the  very  limitation  of  the  denial  of  anything 
good,  argues  that  the  writer  does  not  intend 
to  represent  himself  as  wholly  unregenerate. 
And  this  is  confirmed  by  the  following  clause, 
which  is  given,  with  its  negative  counterpart 
appended,  as  the  proof  from  experience,  of 
the  absence  of  anything  good  in  the  lower 
nature.  [On  Paul's  use  of  the  tcnnjlesh,  see 
notes  on  2:  5.  "Doubtless,"  says  Tholuck, 
"the  corporeal  system  is  the  organ  through 
which  many  sins  are  executed,  and  doubtless 
also  it  too  often  prevails  over  the  spiritual 
interests  to  the  prejudice  of  the  individual. 
Still  we  must  take  into  consideration  that  per 
se  that  system  cannot  be  evil :  moreover,  that 
it  does  not  necessarilj'  occasion  inordinate 
desires,  some  discord  in  the  spiritual  part 
alwaj's  needing  to  precede,  before  such  a  pre- 
ponderance of  the  bcdily  appetites  can  take 
place.  Not  the  flesh,  but  the  mind  of  the 
flesh  is  evil."  Still  he  acknowledges  that 
flesh,  according  to  the  usiis  loquendi  of  the 
New  Testament,  denotes,  in  contrast  with 
spirit,"  human  nature  as  weak  and  impotent 
to  good."  Dr.  Weiss  regards  it  (as  used  in 
the  specially  doctrinal  e])istles)  as  the  "ex- 
pression for  the  natural  human  being  in  its 
specific  distinction  from  God  "  ("Bib.  Theol.", 
Vol.  I.,  p.  34;^),  but  we  think,  with  Neander, 
that  in  the  Pauline  S3-stem  it  generally  denotes 
human  nature  in  its  state  of  estrangement 
from  the  divine  life.]*  For  to  will  [the 
good]  is  present  with   me,  or  to  me  [it  is 


iDr.  Weiss  thinks  the  meaning  of  (<ropf)  sa,rx  is  I  nature  untouched  by  grace  in  general,  and  in  this  sense 
somewhat  changed  in  the  later  epistles  (e.  (7 ,  those  of  it  is  the  seat  of  sin."  A  suhject,  certainly,  may  be 
the  imprisonment),  where  it  specially  denotes  "  human  '  diflerently  or  more  fully  developed  in  one  epistle  than 


M 


178 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  VII. 


19  For  the  good  that  I  would,  I  do  not:  but  the  evil 
which  I  would  not,  tliat  I  do. 

^0  Now  if  1  do  that  I  would  not,  it  is  no  more  I  that 
do  it,  but  sin  that  dwelleth  iu  me. 


19  but  to  ido  that  which  is  good  is  not.     For  the  good 
which  I  would  I  do  not:  but  the  evil  which  I  would 

20  nut,  that  I  practise.    But  if  what  I  would  not,  that  I 
do,  it  is  no  more  I  that  i  do  it,  but  sin  which  dwell- 


at  hand,  lies  in  my  power  (De  Wette)  ] ; 
but  how  to  perform  that  which  is  good  I 
find  not.  The  verb  'I  find'  is  wanting  in  the 
oldest  manuscripts  [X  A  B  C].  The  abrupt 
negative  "not"  or  no,  without  any  verb,  is 
peculiarly  appropriate  and  forcible.  [This 
reading  is  adopted  by  the  principal  editors, 
Lachmann,  Tischendorf,  Tregelles,  Westcott 
and  Hort,  but  is  not  favored  by  Fritzsche,  De 
Wette,  Meyer.] 

19.  For  introduces  the  proof  of  the  pre- 
ceding negation.  The  good  that  I  would, 
I  do  not:  and  the  alternative  follows:  but 
the  evil  which  I  would  not,  that  I  do. 
"With  more  literal  exactness  this  verse  may  be 
rendered  thus:  For  the  good  which  I  will,,  I 
do  not ;  but  the  evil  which  J  do  not  will,  this  I 
practise.  [This  does  not  imply  that  the  per- 
son described  never  does  anything  that  is 
good,  but — as  we  are  all  obliged  to  confess  in 
prayer  and  song  of  ourselves  —  that  sin  is 
mixed  with  all  he  does.  We  may  remark 
that  even  Pagans  recognized  in  themselves  a 
higher  and  a  lower  nature,  and  the  contrariety 
of  the  two;  and  though  their  "better  self" 
had  little  of  that  love  of  God  and  his  law,  or 
of  that  hatred  of  sin  and  self-loathing  on 
account  of  sin,  which  were  felt  by  the  "inner 
man,"  as  described  by  the  apostle,  yet  they 
expressed  this  dualism  and  self-contradiction 
of  their  natures  in  terms  very  similar  to  those 
used  by  the  apostle.  The  following  passages 
are  most  frequently  quoted  by  commentators. 
"For  clearly  I  have  two  souls,"  in  Zeno- 
phon's  "Cyrop.,"  VI.  1.  "For  when  the 
sinner  wills  not  to  sin  but  to  do  right,  it  is 
evident  that  what  he  wills  he  does  not,  and 
what  he  does  not  will  he  does."  (Epictetus, 
"Encheirid.,"  II.  26.) 

Aliudque  cupido,  Mens  aliud  su.adet: 
Video  meliora  prohoque,  deteriora  sequor. 

"Desire  persuades  one  way,  the  mind  another; 
I  see  and  approve  the  better,  I  follow  the 
worse."     (Ovid's   "  Metamorph.,"  VII.,  16- 


18.)  The  last  part  of  this  quotation  has  been 
versified  as  follows: 

I  see  the  right  and  I  approve  it  too, 

I  hate  the  wrong  and  yet  the  wrong  pursue. 

On  the  doing  of  evil  by  a  regenerate  man, 
Philippi  thus  remarks:  "Even  when  the  life 
of  the  regenerate  man  is  holy  and  governed 
by  the  Spirit,  the  uninterrupted,  persistent 
(or,  the  repressed  and  intermittent)  sinful 
emotions  of  the  heart  may  very  well  be  de- 
scribed as  a  doing  of  evil  that  is  not  desired. 
To  this  is  to  be  added  that  these  very  emotions 
never  remain  absolutely  within,  but,  even 
apart  from  the  manifold  sins  of  ignorance, 
weakness,  and  unwatchfulness,  in  which  they 
manifest  themselves,  leave  their  hindering:  or 
polluting  influence  on  the  best  acts  of  the 
regenerated  one,  and  thus  envelop  even  his 
brightest  experiences,  as  it  were,  with  a  veil 
of  earthliness."] 

20.  He  comes  back  now  to  the  conclusion 
affirmed  in  ver.  17,  having  traced  the  process 
of  proof  step  by  step.  Now  if,  etc.  Trans- 
late :  If,  now,  what  I  do  not  will,  this  I  do,  it 
is  no  longer  I  that  perform  it :  the  perform- 
ance is  no  longer  the  act  of  my  true  self,  but 
of  sin  that  dwelleth  in  me.  It  is  the  sin  prin- 
ciple in  me,  rather  than  my  inward  man,  my 
real  self,  that  performs  the  evil.  Such  a  state- 
ment as  this,  separated  from  its  connection,  is 
easily  perverted  to  an  Antinomian  and  pro- 
fane use.  But  to  separate  it  from  its  connec- 
tion is  to  pervert  it.  In  its  connection  it  is  no 
immoral  apology  for  sin,  but  a  humiliating 
confession  of  sin.  [Only  he  who  has  striven 
with  all  his  powers,  as  if  for  and  with  his  life, 
against  sin  (Heb.  12:4),  and  still  finds  its  re- 
mainders within  him,  can  truly  say:  It  is  no 
longer  I  that  perform  it.] 

In  the  next  three  verses  we  have  a  summary 
of  the  results  of  ver.  14-20. 

21.  1  find  then  a  law  (literally,  the  laiv), 
meaning  this  rule  or  principle  ;  for  the  sense 
of  the  word  law  here  and  in  ver.  23,  25,  last 


in  another,  but  to  suppose  that  Paul's  views,  on  this  or 
any  other  subject  had  materially  changed,  is  virtually 
to  deny  that  he  was  a  divinely  inspired  teacher.  And 
Dr.  Weiss'  method  of  examining  separately  the  writings 


of  a  certain  class  or  period,  while  useful  in  many 
respects,  tends  nevertheless  to  ignore  the  comprehen- 
sive character  and  unity  of  divine  revelation. — (F.) 


Ch.  VII.] 


ROMANS. 


179 


21  I  fiiKl  then  a  law,  that,  when  I  would  do  good,  evil 
is  preseut  with  lue. 

•12  For  I  delight  in  the  law  of  God  after  the  inward 
Willi : 

2.i  But  I  see  another  law  in  my  uieiubers,  warring 
against  tlie  law  of  my  uiind,  and  bringing  me  into 
captivity  to  the  law  of  sin  which  is  in  my  members. 


21  eth  in  me.    I  find  then  'the  law,  that,  to  me  who 

22  Would  do  good,  evil  is  present.     For  I  delight  2  in 

23  the  law  of  (iod  alter  the  inward  man:  but  1  see  a 
dilferent  law  in  my  members,  warring  against  the 
law  of  my  mind,  and"  bringing  me   into  captivity 

24  Sunder  the  law  of  siu  which  is  in  my  members.    0 


1  Or,  in  regard  of  the  law 'I  Gr.  with i  Gr.  in.    Man;  aocieQl  autborllies  read  to. 


clause,  see  note  on  3  :  27.  That,  when  I 
would  do  good — literally,  thattoyneioishing 
to  do  the  good,  the  evil  is  present  to  me.  [In- 
terjjreters  ditt'er  greatly  in  their  explanations 
of  this  verse.  Mej'er  thinks  "the  law"  here 
is  the  law  of  Moses,  and  this  view  seems  to  be 
hinted  at  in  the  marginal  translation  of  the 
Revised  Version.  He  would  also  connect  the 
law  with  the  participle  willing :  To  me  willing 
the  law  in  order  to  do  good.  This  interpreta- 
tion has  been  called  "forced"  and  "harsh." 
Others  have  made  the  law  the  object  of  the 
verb  <o  rfo,  and  have  put  "the  good"  in  appo- 
sition with  the  law.  Many  commentators 
have  this  literal  rendering:  "I  find,  there- 
fore, for  me  who  am  desirous  of  doing  the 
good,  the  rule  that  evil  lies  by  me,"  and  make 
this  rule  equivalent  to  the  other  or  different 
law  in  the  members,  (ver.  m.)  The  verb  whence 
comes  the  participle  wishing  {QiXia )  com- 
monly denotes  in  the  classics  to  will,  but  in 
the  New  Testament  often  has  the  meaning 
of  to  wish  or  to  desire.  See  note  on  ver.  15. 
In  Phil.  2  :  13,  Paul  ascribes  the  will  or  desire 
(to  do  good)  to  God's  efficient  working.  The 
reader  will  observe  that  throughout  this  pas- 
sage there  is  no  willing  of  what  is  evil.] 

In  the  next  two  verses  the  apostle  presents 
again  the  inward  conflict  in  both  its  elements, 
but  with  a  stronger  statement  of  the  better 
side  than  in  ver.  16,  and  a  weaker  statement 
of  the  worse  side  tlian  in  ver.  14. 

22.   I  delight   in   [literally,  rejoice  with] 
the  law  of  God  is  stronger  than  I  consent  to 
the  law  that  it  is  good.     (ver.  le.)     [Does  not 
the  P.-almist  speak  of  the  blcssedtiess  of  the 
man  "whose   delight   is   in   the   law  of   the! 
Lord"?    The  two  parts  of  this  verse  show' 
that  mind  and  heart  are  both  on  the  side  of  | 
God.]     The  inward  man  corresponds  to  the  / 
of  ver.  17,  20,  but  is  more  emphatic.     Both  i 
parts  of  this  verse,  as  compared  with  the  pre-  | 
ceding  (ver.  i6-2i),  indicate   a   moral   progress. 
[The  following  is  the  substance  of  Prof.  Cre- 
mer's  remarks  on  the  "inner  man"   (see  2 
Cor.  4  :  16;  Eph.  3  :  16;  and  compare  1  Peter 


3  :  3,  4) :  "The  inner  man  denotes  not  in  gen- 
eral the  inner  distinctive  character  of  the  man, 
but  the  inner  spiritual  and  divine  nature  of 
the  man  in  its  antagonism  to  the  flesh.  It 
embraces  that  which,  according  to  various 
aspects,  is  designated  by  the  words  mind, 
spirit,  heart,  in  such  wise,  however,  that  the 
reference  to  the  spirit  predominates.  ...  As 
it  is  the  inner  man  which  experiences  [daily] 
renewal  (2  Cor.  4 :  16),  strengtheningby  the  Spirit 

(Eph.  3:  16;  compare  Luke  1 :  BO),   and  tO  which   beloUgS 

the  approval  of  a  life  devoted  to  God  (Rom.  7:22), 
we  are  warranted  in  regarding  it  as  synonym 
for  ptieuma,  spirit,  as  used  in  Matt.  5:3; 
Rom.  8  :  10,  and,  indeed,  in  such  a  manner 
that  inner  man  denotes  the  spirit  as  reflected 
in  the  mind  or  self-consciousness.  This  ac- 
cordingly decides  the  question  whether  the 
expression  applies  to  the  regenerate  or  the 
unregenerate  man.  In  the  sense  in  which 
both  possess  the  spirit,  the  inner  man  may  be 
applied  to  both.  By  means  of  this  expression, 
this  spirit  is  defined  as  the  proper  true  man, 
after  deducting  that  which  is  visible  to  the 
fleshly  eye."  Paul  thus  speaks  thrice  of  the 
inner  man,  and  in  every  instance  it  is  the 
regenerate  man.  The  daily  renovation  of  the 
inward  man  is  but  the  contrast  of  the  decaying 
of  the  fleshly  tabernacle,  and  Paul  could  just 
as  well  pray  that  the  new  man  might  be 
strengthened  with  power  as  that  the  inward 
man  might  be.  According  to  Philippi,  Paul 
"chose  tliis  expression,  inner  man,  rather 
than  new  or  sjiiritual  man,  because  he  wished 
just  to  show  that  sin  is  a  foreign  power  to  the 
believer,  bringing  him  into  bondage  against 
his  will.  This  he  does  by  showing  how  his 
real  ego,  the  innermost  ground  and  core  of 
his  desire  and  being,  is  free  from  sin.  Thus 
there  was  here  no  occasion  whatever  for  de- 
scribing this  innermost  ground  and  core  as 
expressli'  spiritual.  Rather,  on  the  contrary, 
since  in  the  apostle's  teaching  it  is  self-evident 
.  .  .  that  only  that  which  is  created  in  man 
through  the  Sprit  can  be  in  sympathy  with 
the  spiritual  law,  the  only  thing  of  import- 


180 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  VII. 


24  O  wretched  man  (hat  I  am!  who  shall  deliver  me  I        wretched  man  that  I  am!  who  shall  deliver  me  out 
from  the  body  of  this  death?  I  2-5  of  Mhe  body  of  this  death?    ^l  I  hank  God  through 


1  Or,  this  body  of  death 'i  Many  ancient  authorities  read  But  thanks  he  to  God. 


ance  was  to  describe  this  desire  of  the  spirit 
in  man  as  his  real  ego,  his  real  inward  man."] 

23.  But  I  see  [observe  as  a  spectator] 
another  (that  is,  a  different)  law — not  merely 
another  numerically,  but  a  different  gener- 
ically — in  my  members,  havitig  its  seat  in 
the  body,  not  in  the  inward  man,  Avarring 
against  the  laAV  of  my  mind,  which  is  in 
full  sympathy  with  the  law  of  God  (ver. 22), 
and  bringing  me  into  captivity  to  (or 
under)  the  law  of  sin  which  is  in  my 
members.  [The  apostle  here  mentions  four 
laws,  but  they  are  not  all  essentially  difierent, 
the  law  in  the  members  being  equivalent  to 
the  law  of  sin,  etc.  The  mind  (or  voOs),  whose 
law  harmonizes  with  that  of  God,  denotes  in 
the  New  Testament  especially  the  organ  of 
moral  thinking  and  knowing,  the  moral  rea- 
son, and  is  nearly  equivalent  to  the  reflective 
or  moral  consciousness.  (Cremer. )  In  this 
chapter  it  is  used  antithetically  to  flesh,  and 
is  equivalent  to  the  inner  man.  The  apostle 
does  not  here  aflSrm  that  his  real  self  is  taken 
captive  to  the  law  of  sin.  On  the  contrary, 
his  mind  serves  the  law  of  God.  "In  the 
redeemed  man,"  says  Philippi,  "sin  has  with- 
drawn frOin  the  centre  of  personality  to  the 
circumference  of  elementary  nature."  "It  is 
no  more  I  that  do  it,"  etc.  The  taken  ca^^tive 
is,  literally, "  taken  by  thespear"— that  is,  with 
force  and  against  one's  will,  "/w  the  law"  is 
thereadingof  N  B  D  F  Kand  several  cursives.] 

24.  [Wretched,  the  adjective,  is  found  else- 
where in  Rev.  3  :  17,  the  noun  in  Rom.  3  :  16 ; 
James  5 : 1,  and  the  verb  in  James  4:9.]  This 
lamentation,  wretched  man  that  I  am  !  [he 
does  not  here  choose  to  call  himself  ^'wi^^y]  is 
not  inconsistent  with  the  idea  of  moral  pro- 
gress affirmed  above.  He  is  now  looking  back 
over  the  whole  struggle ;  the  nearer  one  comes 
to  freedom,  the  more  galling  is  the  sense  of 
remaining  bondage.  Who  shall  {loill)  de- 
liver me?  etc.  [In  all  languages  a  question 
is  often  used  to  denote  a  wish.  Winer — 
wrongly  in  part,  we  think — here  regards  it  as 
denoting  "perplexity  and  conscious  helpless- 
•ness."]  This  question  is  an  expression  of  in- 
tense desire,  but  not  of  despair,  for  the  answer 
is  near  at  hand.     [It  is  not  the  prayer  of  an 


awakened  sinner,  appealing  to  God's  mercy 
for  a  new  heart,  pardon  of  sin,  and  deliver- 
ance from  eternal  death.  Paul  well  knew 
who  was  his  Deliverer,  and  he  feels  no  need 
of  inentioninghis  name.  "The  cry  is  uttered," 
as  De  Wette  observes,  "in  full  consciousness 
of  the  deliverance  which  Christ  has  effected, 
and  as  leading  to  the  expression  of  thanks 
which  follow."  (Alford.)  "He  asks  not  by 
whom  he  was  to  be  delivered,  as  one  in  doubt, 
like  unbelievers  who  understand  not  that 
there  is  but  one  real  Deliverer,  but  it  is  the 
voice  of  one  panting,  and  almost  fainting, 
because  he  does  not  receive  immediate  help, 
as  he  longs  for."  (Calvin.)  In  Meyer's 
opinion,  "such  sighing  is  merely  the  opera- 
tion of  the  so-called  gratia  pra;venie7is."] 
Grainmatically,  'this'  might  agree  with 
'body,'  but  to  connect  it  with  'death'  is 
preferable.  [So  Winer:  "As  the  apostle  had 
already  said  much  of  death  (ver.  10,  seq. ),  he 
might  naturally  refer'  to  it  as  this  death.'\ 
This  is  not  an  expression  of  positive  desire  to 
die.  If  the  word  '  body '  is  to  be  referred  at 
all  to  the  human  body  in  a  literal  sense,  it  is 
only  as  the  usurped  seat  of  sin.  Some  have 
supposed  a  reference  in  this  expression  to  the 
custom  of  chaining  a  criminal  to  a  dead  body, 
and  so  leaving  him  to  drag  out  a  miserable, 
lingering  existence  in  this  loathsome  com- 
panionship; a  very  certain  and  cruel  custom 
[see  Virgil's  "^neid,"  VIII,  485,  seq.];  a 
very  forcible  figure  of  speech,  but  a  very 
doubtful  interpretation.  [Body  of  death, 
which  is  subject  to  and  belongs  to  death. 
(Gifford.)  "Tlie  body  by  which  I  am  en- 
slaved to  this  deadly  power  of  sin."  With 
the  apostle  any  bondage  to  the  flesh  was  so 
far  forth  a  bondage  to  tlie  law  of  sin  and 
death.  Meyer  gives  this  interpretation : 
"Who  shall  deliver  me  out  of  bondage  under 
the  law  of  siii  into  moral  freedorr;,  in  which 
my  body  shall  no  longer  serve  as  the  seat  of 
this  shameful  death  ?  Hodge  regards 'body' 
here  as  equivalent  to  a  weight  or  burden.  In 
the  Wisdom  of  Solomon  (9: 15)  we  read  that 
"the  corruptible  body  presseth  down  the  soul 
and  the  earthly  tabernacle  weigheth  down 
the  much  musing  mind."] 


Ch.  VII.] 


ROMANS. 


181 


25  I  thank  God  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord.  So 
then  with  the  mind  I  myself  serve  the  law  of  God ;  but 
•with  the  flesh  the  law  of  sin. 


Jesus  Christ  our  Lord.  So  then  I  of  myself  with  the 
mind,  indeed,  serve  the  law  of  God;  but  with  the 
flesh  the  law  of  sin. 


25.  I  thank  G!od  [or,  thanks  be  to  God, 
the  MSS.  l)ere  varying  in  their  testimony. 
The  uncials  D  E  have — the  grace  of  God  (will 
deliver,  etc.),  which  in  tliis  connection  is  very 
tame].  Through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord. 
An  indirect,  but  substantial  and  emphatic 
answer  to  the  questi;)n,  or  rather  wail,  of  the 
preceding  verse.  [In  the  fullness  of  his  deep 
emotion  he  does  not  explicitly  state  for  what 
he  gives  thanks.  But  any  one  can  under- 
stand that  it  is  the  longed-for  deliverance 
from  condemnation  (s:  i),  and  from  the  reign- 
ing power  of  sin  and  death.  Meyer  says: 
"There  is  not  a  change  of  person  but  of 
scene."  But  in  his  view  the  person  of  the 
last  verse  was  unredeemed  and  out  of  Christ; 
now  the  same  man  is  in  Christ;  and  yet, 
again,  he  is  simply  the  man  himself  and 
out  of  Christ.  Olshausen,  Lange,  Hofmann, 
Wordsworth,  find  in  this  verse  the  beginning 
of  a  graci(jus  experience.]  He  has  found  the 
longed-for  Deliverer  in  Christ,  but  he  ad- 
dresses his  thanksgiving  to  God,  as  the  primal 
source  of  the  mercy  that  provided  the  Deliv- 
erer. Compare  1  Cor.  15:5";  Epli.  5:20; 
Col.  3: 17.  [Not  only  is  thanksgiving  ofiered 
in  the  name  of  Christ,  but  it  is  implied  that 
the  deliverance  has  been  obtained  through 
him  (so  Godet;  see  Noyes'  translation,  and 
De  Wette  on  1  : 8),  and  therefore  the  apostle 
would  not  hesitate  to  say:  Jesus  Christ  is  my 
Deliverer  from  this  bod}-  of  sin  and  death.] 
So  then  implies  a  summing  "up  of  the  con- 
tents of  ver.  14-24.  I  myself.  [I  Paul, "for 
my  own  person."  (Meyer.)  Some  prefer: 
"I,  in  my  real  self,"  which  makes  good  sense, 
onlj'  we  have  to  suppose,  as  I  think  we  may. 
that  this  full  subject  is  not  to  be  repeated  in 
the  next  clause.]  With  the  mind  serve  the 
law  of  God,  but  with  the  Hesh  the  law 
of  sin.  [Nothing  can  be  more  self-evident 
than  that  the  latter  half  of  this  verse  presents, 
in  the  words  of  Prof  Stuart,  "a  summary  of 
the  whole  preceding  representation."  To  this 
statement  Prof.  Turner — who,  with  Stuart, 
regards  the  preceding  representation  as  that 
of  an  unregenerate  inan — demurs,  and  says, 
that  to  make  the  phrase  'serve  the  law  of 
God'  "denote  nothing  more  than  the  full 
acquiescence  of  the  mind  as  under  the  influ- 


ence of  reason  and  conscience,  is  harsh.  To 
serve  is  to  obey,  to  do  the  commands  of,  and 
will  not  bear  such  a  modified  signification." 
This  is  strong  confirmation  of  the  correctness 
of  our  interpretation.]  The  apostle  closes  this 
remarkable  account  of  the  conflict  of  good 
and  evil  in  human  nature  with  an  emphatic 
profession  of  the  willingness  of  the  spirit  to 
serve  the  law  of  God,  and  a  confession  of  the 
weaknessof  the  flesh.  (Matt.?6:4.)  [Something 
more,  we  think,  is  expressed  here  than  the 
"  willingness  of  the  spirit  to  serve  the  law  of 
God."  It  is  aflBrmed  that  the  real  self,  the 
proper  man,  does  actually  serve  the  law  of 
God  (which  is  more  than  any  unregenerate 
man  ever  did),  and  this  is  suflScient  to  show 
that  the  regenerate  man  is  not  here  repre- 
sented as  having  "nothing  but  an  impotent 
and  fruitless  will  to  do  what  is  good,  along 
with  a  constant  performing  of  what  is  evil." 
That  a  declaration  of  a  present  twofold  ser- 
vice on  the  part  of  the  apostle — that  of  the 
law  of  God  with  his  mind  and  that  of  the  law 
of  sin  with  his  flesh — should  follow  the  thanks- 
giving for  deliverance  is  especially  a  puzzle 
to  those  who  maintain  the  view  which  is 
opposed  to  our  own.  Some  would  enclose  the 
first  clause  of  the  verse  in  parenthesis  and 
regard  the  space  it  occupies  as  a  blank.  By 
some  it  is  looked  upon  as  a  gloss,  taken  in 
from  the  margin,  and  misplaced  at  that. 
And  some  have  gone  so  far  as  to  suppose  a 
transposition  of  the  two  main  parts  of  the 
verse.  Others  (Alford,  Olshausen,  Lange, 
Turner)  find  here  a  thoroughly  new  religious 
experience,  and  would  connect  this  verse  with 
the  next  chapter.  Touching  the  division  of 
chapters,  we  agree  with  PJiilippi,  who  thinks 
"the  seventh  chapter  would  conclude  better 
with  8:11."  Certainly  the  "I  myself"  is 
Paul  the  speaker,  and  the  tense  of  the  verb 
denotes  his  present  experience  and  condition. 
The  "I  of  iTiyself,"  found  in  the  American 
Kevised  Version,  is  by  Forbes  deemed  "per- 
haps admissible  in  this  sense  only:  'I  in  my- 
self, notwithstanding  whatever  progress  in 
righteousness  the  Spirit  of  Christ  may  have 
wrought  in  me  or  will  work  in  this  life,  am 
still  most  imperfect;  with  mj- mind,  indeed, 
I  serve  the  law  of  God,  but  with  my  flesh  the 


182 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  VIII. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 


fpHERE  is  therefore  now  no  condemnation  to  them 
-*  which  are  in  Christ  Jesus,  who  walk  not  after  the 
flesh,  but  after  the  Spirit. 


1  There  is  therefore  now  no  condemnation  to  them 

2  that  are  in  Christ  Jesus.    For  the  law  of  the  Spirit 


law  of  sin,  and  tried  by  the  law  could  not 
be  justified,  but  would  come  under  condem- 
nation, if  viewed  in  myself  and  not  in  Christ 
Jesus.'"  "So  vast  a  diflference  is  there  be- 
twixt a  Christian  taken  «i  himself  and  in 
Christ."  (Leigliton.)  Meyer  contends  that 
the  view  we  have  advocated  would  logically 
require  a  transposition  of  the  last  clauses, 
thus:  "So,  then,  I  myself  with  the  flesh  do, 
indeed,  serve  the  law  of  sin,  but  with  the 
mind  the  law  of  God."  But  against  this,  we 
may  say,  that  the  design  of  Paul  in  this  chap- 
ter leads  him  to  emphasize  the  power  of  the 
law  of  sin  in  our  fleshen  selves — to  show,  in 
other  words,  that  "the  best  obedience  of  our 
hands"  ftiils  to  fulfill  the  law's  demands,  and 
that  the  holiness  of  the  regenerate,  being  thus 
imperfect,  cannot  free  him  from  condemna- 
tion. We  may  properly  notice  that,  as  in  ver. 
23,  where  Paul  speaks  of  becoming  captive  to 
the  law  of  sin,  he  limits  this  law,  as  he  does 
not  elsewhere,  to  that  which  exists  in  his 
members;  so  here,  where  he  speaks  of  serving 
the  law  of  sin,  he  limits  this  service,  as  he 
does  not  elsewhere  (see  6:6,  20,  etc.),  to  the 
flesh  alone.  We  remark  still  further,  that 
this  unwilling  service  of  the  law  of  sin  with 
the  flesh,  merely,  is  a  vastly  different  thing 
from  a  man's  walking  willingly  and  willfully, 
and  with  his  entire  being,  "after  the  flesh."] 


Ch.  8  :  ["The  chapter  beginning  with  no 
condemnation  and  ending  with  no  sepa- 
ration." We  may  give  as  its  purport:  the 
present  and  future  blessedness  of  the  justified 
in  Christ  in  its  especial  connection  with  the 
work  of  the  Spirit,  or,  in  general  terms:  "the 
happy  condition  of  the  man  in  Christ" 
(Meyer),  or  "the  security  of  believers." 
(Hodge.)  De  Wette  gives  the  following  as 
the  general  analysis  of  this  chapter :  "  («)  Ver. 
1-4.  Free  from  condemnation  is  the  redeemed 
man  who  lives  in  the  Spirit,  (b)  Ver.  5-17. 
This  spiritual  life  leads  him  to  the  life  of 
blessedness,  to  adoption  as  God's  child,  and 
to  participancy  in  the  glory  of  Christ,  (c) 
Ver.  18-30.  This  future  glory  of  Christians  is 
assured  by  a  universal  longing,  by  a  hope 


verified  in  steadfastness  and  prayer,  and  by  a 
firm  trust,  (d)  Ver.  31-39.  Thus  the  Chris- 
tian has  nothing  more  to  fear,  but  everything 
to  hope  for;  he  cannot  be  separated  from  the 
love  of  God  in  Christ."  Olshausen  makes  7  : 
25-8:  17  treat  of  the  experience  of  redemp- 
tion until  the  perfection  of  the  individual  life ; 
and  8:  18-39,  of  the  perfection  of  the  whole 
creation  with  the  children  of  God.  Godet 
gives  as  the  theme  of  this  chapter:  The  work 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  justified  believer — 
(a)  The  victory  of  the  Holy  Spirit  over  sin 
and  death,  1-11;  (b)  Freed  from  sin  and 
death,  the  Christian  becomes  son  and  heir, 
12-17  ;  (c)  Completion  of  the  plan  of  salva- 
tion, notwithstanding  the  miseries  of  our 
present  condition,  18-30;  (d)  Hymn  of  the 
assurance  of  salvation,  31-39.  Meyer  says  it 
is  only  with  the  beginning  of  this  chapter 
that  "the  nev)  scene  opens  of  which  the  cry 
of  thanksgiving  (7:  25]  was  only  a  previous 
glimpse,  broken  off  again  by  the  'so  then  I 
myself.'"  Per  contra:  "The  apostle  now 
presents  to  us  the  life  of  the  regenerate  man 
under  its  other  aspect."  (Philippi.)  These 
two  aspects  of  the  Christian's  experience  cor- 
respond, in  a  manner,  to  the  two  states  of  the 
unregenerate  above  depicted — namely,  that 
of  carnal  security  and  that  of  conviction  of 
sin.] 

Grace  accomplishes  what  the  law  could  not 
accomplish,  agreeably  to  6:  14;  7:  6  and  8: 
I-I7.  («)  Grace  furnishes  not  only  a  justify- 
ing righteousness  (ver.  1);  but  also  a  regener- 
ating and  sanctif3nng  power  (ver.  2);  {b)  the 
way  in  which  this  is  done  is  briefly  explained. 
(Ver.  3, 4.) 

1.  Therefore  noAV  marks  an  inference  from 
7:  25,  first  clause.  [So  Fritzsche,  Philippi.  Al- 
ford  and  Lange  connect  this  freedom  from 
condemnation  with  the  serving  the  law  of  God 
with  the  mind  and  delighting  in  that  law, 
since  a  person  thus  serving  is  supposed  to  be 
"in  Christ  Jesus.''  Meyer  connects  this  verse 
with  the  immediately  preceding,  'I  myself,' 
regarded  as  unregenerate  and  out  of  Christ, 
in  contrast  with  the  renewed  now  found  in 
Christ.     But  the  holiest  believer  on  earth,  if 


Ch.  VIII.] 


ROMANS. 


183 


viewed  apart  from  Christ,  could  not  escape 
condemnation  or  stand  in  the  judgment  for  a 
moment.  Nothing,  we  thinl<,  will  so  much 
surprise  us  when  ushered  into  the  light  of 
eternity,  compared  with  which  the  blaze  of 
the  midday  sun  is  well  nigh  perfect  darkness, 
as  the  sight  and  sense  of  our  imperfections 
and  sins.  Bengel,  Godet,  and  Stuart  go  back  as 
far  as  to  7  :  tt  for  the  connection.  Haldane  and 
Hodge  regard  this  inference  as  the  legitimate 
conclusion  of  all  that  Paul  had  previously 
established.  The  'therefore  now'  of  this  verse 
decidedly  favors  the  view  we  have  taken  of 
chapter  7.  It  shows  that  the  idea  of  con- 
demnation in  ourselves  and  of  justification  in 
Christ  alone  has  not  been  absent  from  the 
apostle's  mind;  and  hence  we  may  regard 
this  verse  as  a  key  to  the  right  interpretation 
of  the  preceding  chapter,  from  which  in  fact 
it  should  not  have  been  separated.]  '  Now  '  is 
temporal  and  emphatic;  'now'  that  a  deliver- 
ance has  been  effected,  7 :  24,  25,  first  clause. 
[Philippi,  regarding  'now'  as  logical,  finds 
this  idea:  "now  from  this  it  follows  that  on 
those  who  are  in  Christ  Jesus  no  condemna- 
tion falls,  for  in  him  they  have  freedom  from 
sin  and  death."]  No  condemnation — that 
is,  no  sentence  of  condemnation,  as  in  5:  16, 
18.  To  them  Avhicli  are  in  Christ  Jesus. 
[Condemnation  rests  upon  the  sinner  every- 
where else  than  '  in  Christ.'  In  him  who  bore 
our  curse  we  find  a  shelter  where  no  bolt  of 
wrath  can  fall  on  our  guilty  heads.  "The 
man,"  says  Olshausen,  "is  not  free  from  con- 
demnation on  account  of  his  subjective  condi- 
tion, but  for  the  sake  of  the  objective  work  of 
Christ  which  he  lays  hold  of  in  faith."  In 
the  lack  of  complete  holiness  we  shall  need 
for  our  justification  to  be  "found  in  Christ," 
and  to  have  a  personal  interest  in  his  all-per- 
fect righteousness.  If  the  whole  of  this  chap- 
ter were  like  two  or  three  verses  at  the  begin- 
ning taken  by  themselves,  we  then  might 
imagine  that  "the  redeemed  man  is  entirely 
freed  from  the  law  of  sin."  (Mej'er.)  Butthis 
is  far  from  being  the  case,  and  this  complete 
deliverance  from  bondage  by  the  teaching  of 


this  very  chapter,  will  not  be  effected  until 
the  future  redemption  and  glorification  of 
the.se  our  bodies  of  sin  and  death.  Much  of 
chapter  8,  as  a  certain  writer  remarks,  has 
regard  to  the  conflict  with  sin  and  infirmity.] 
That  vital  spiritual  union  with  Christ  which 
results  from  a  living  faith  in  him,  and  which 
secures  our  justification  and  salvation  is  vari- 
ously expressed;  sometimes  as  here  we  are 
said  to  be  'in  Christ,'  sometimes  Christ  is  said 
to  be  in  us  (Coi.  i;  27),  sometimes  we  are  said  to 
have  put  on  Christ.  (Oai.  3:27.)  These  and 
other  similar  expressions  (John  15:  5;  Eph.  3;  n,  etc.) 
all  point  to  the  one  blessed  reality  of  a  true 
union  between  Christ  and  his  people.  [Com- 
pare Rom.-  6:  11;  16:  7;  1  Cor.  1:  30;  15: 
18;  Gal.  3:  28;  Eph.  2:  13;  Phil.  3:  9;  Col. 
2:  6,  etc'  "The  churches  are  in  Christ,  the 
persons  are  in  Christ.  They  are  found  in 
Christ  and  preserved  in  Christ.  They  are 
saved  and  sanctified  in  Christ,  are  rooted, 
built  up,  and  made  perfect  in  Christ.  Their 
ways  are  ways  that  be  in  Christ,  their  conver- 
sation is  a  good  conversation  in  Christ,  their 
faith,  hope,  love,  joy,  their  whole  life  is  in 
Christ Finallj',  this  character  of  exist- 
ence is  not  changed  by  that  which  changes  all 
besides.  Those  who  have  entered  on  it  depart, 
but  they  die  in  the  Lord,  they  sleep  in  Jesus, 
they  are  the  dead  in  Christ;  and  when  he 
shall  appear,  they  will  appear;  and  when  he 
comes,  God  shall  bring  them  with  him,  and 
they  shall  reign  in  life  by  one  Jesus  Christ." 
(Bernard's  "Progress  of  Christian  Doctrine.")] 
The  remaining  clauses  of  this  verse,  as  read 
in  our  Common  Version — "who  walk  not 
after  the  flesh,  but  after  the  Spirit" — are  not 
supported  by  the  oldest  and  best  manuscripts 
[NBC  D*  FG.],  and  are  justly  omitted  by 
Alford,  Noyes,  the  Bible  Union,  and  most 
critical  editors  of  the  Greek  text.  They  were 
doubtless,  copied  by  some  ancient  scribe,  with 
good  intention,  but  not  with  good  judgment, 
from  ver.  4.  where  they  are  unquestionably 
genuine.  Here  they  are  introduced  prema- 
turel3^  [For  other  instances  in  this  Epistle 
where   the    "oldest  and    best  manuscripts" 


1  The  phrase:  "in  Christ"  is  almost  exclusively 
Pauline,  it  being  found  elsewhere  only  in  1  Peter  5:14; 
'A:  16.  John, however,  often  uses  equivalent  terms.  The 
expression  "  in  the  Lord,"  occurring  over  forty  times, 
is  found  outside  of  Paul's  writings  only  in  Rev.  14  :  13. 
Prof  Cremer  gives  some  fifty  examples  of  "  in  Christ" 


where  "a  peculiar  union  of  the  Christian  subject  with 
the  Lord  is  treated  of,"  and  fifteen  other  instances  "  in 
which  the  blessings  of  redemption,  God's  saving  pur- 
pose, etc.,  are  represented  nhjecHvety  as  all  included  in 
Christ"— Christ  being  "iuthe  fullest  sense  the  sphere 
in  which  both  the  subject  and  object  exist." — (F.) 


184 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  VIII. 


2  For  the  law  of  the  Spirit  of  life  in  Christ  Jesus 
hath  made  me  free  from  the  law  of  sin  and  death. 


of  life  in  Christ  Jesus  made  me  free  from  the  law  of 
3  sin  and  of  death.    For  what  the  law  could  not  do, 


give  a  briefer  reading,  see  3:  22;  6:  11;  9: 
28;  10:  15;  11:  6;  13:  9;  14:  6,  21 ;  15 :  24. 
The  Revisers,  in  common  with  all  the  more 
recent  critical  editors,  have,  in  general,  re- 
garded the  briefer  readings  as  the  original 
and  genuine  ones,  and  so  have  given  their 
preference  to  the  oldest  MSS.,  though  few  in 
number  (especially  to  X  B.,  that  is,  the  Sina- 
itic  and  the  Vatican),  rather  than  to  the  later 
and  more  numerous  MSS.  which  support  our 
Textus  Receptus.] 

2.  For  introduces  the  reason  why  there  is 
no  condemnation.  The  law  in  its  broad 
rhetorical  sense,  as  in  3  :  27:  7;  23,  etc.  [Dr. 
Hodge  makes  this  'law  of  the  Spirit,'  etc., 
equivalent  to  the  gospel  which  frees  us  from 
the  law  and  from  condemnation.  And  he 
gives  the  following  as  the  meaning  of  this 
■verse  in  connection  with  the  preceding: 
"There  is  no  condemnation  to  those  who  are 
in  Christ,  because  they  have  been  freed  in 
him  by  the  gospel  of  the  life-giving  Spirit, 
from  that  law  which,  although  good  in  itself, 
is,  through  our  corruption,  the  source  of  sin 
and  death."'  Prof.  Turner,  while  adopting  a 
different  view,  yet  says  that  "The  whole 
clause  may  denote  the  gospel  as  a  spiritual 
and  life-communicating  sj'stem."  Still  this 
does  not  seem  to  be  the  most  natural  interpre- 
tation of  these  words,  'the  law  of  the  Spirit 
of  life,'  and  yet  if  we  make  this  verse  refer 
only  to  inward  sanctification,  we  simply  assert 
by  means  of  the  'for'  which  assigns  a  reason 
for  the  affirmation  of  the  verse  preceding, 
that  our  freedom  from  condemnation,  or  our 
justification,  depends  upon  our  subjective 
righteousness,  a  view  which  clearly  antago- 
nizes the  whole  scheme  of  the  gospel  of  grace. 
In  this  dilemma.  Prof  Riddle  would  give  to 
the  '  no  condemnation  '  a  wider  reference, 
"  having  indeed  a  reference  to  the  justifying 
act  already  past,  but  meaning  rather,  the 
continuance  in  a  state  of  justification,  culmi- 
nating in  final  acquittal  and  glory."  Hence 
he  adopts  in  the  main  Calvin's  interpretation 
of  this  verse:  "The  power  of  the  life-giving 
Spirit  delivered  me  in  Christ  Jesus  (in  virtue 
of  union  to  him  the  fulfiller  of  the  law  and 
the  deliverer  from  the  law)  from  the  law  of 
sin  and  death."  The  connection  of  this  verse 
with  the  immediately  preceding  and  succeed- 


ing shows  conclusively  that  the  idea  of  a 
justifying  righteousness  is  still  in  the  apostle's 
thought,  but  that  in  this  idea  that  of  a  sancti- 
fying righteousness  is  included.  In  conso- 
nance with  this  view.  Dr.  Hodge  well  remarks 
that  "Justification  is  not  on  account  of,  or  on 
the  ground  of,  sanctification,  but  it  is  in  order 
to  it ;  and  therefore  the  two  are  inseparable. 
The  justified  are  always  sanctified.  And, 
therefore,  sp  far  as  the  meaning  is  concerned, 
there  is  no  objection  to  saying,  that  the  con- 
demnation of  sin  of  which  the  apostle  here 
speaks  [next  verse],  includes  the  idea  of  its 
extirpation  or  destruction  as  a  necessary  con- 
sequence."] Of  the  Spirit  of  life — not  the 
Holy  Spirit ;  for  the  word  law  would  not  be 
so  suitable,  if  that  were  the  sense;  but  the 
principle,  or  power,  of  spiritual  life  —  the 
counterpart  of  "the  law  of  sin  and  death," 
both  abstract  terms,  and  therefore  furnishing 
an  additional  reason  why  the  antithetical 
'spirit  of  life  '  should  not  be  explained  as  re- 
ferring to  the  personal  Spirit.  [Many  com- 
mentators, however,  as  Tholuck,  Gifford, 
De  Wette,  Meyer,  Philippi,  Godet,  Lange, 
Alford,  do  adopt  this  reference,  regarding 
the  Spirit  as  the  Lord  and  giver  of  life.  Com- 
pare 2  Cor.  3:  6.  The  Spirit  quickeneth  or 
maketh  alive.  Taking  the  word  in  this  sense 
we  make  this  law,  rule,  or  governing  power 
within  us  to  be  the  fruit  of  the  Spirit.  "  The 
Spirit  of  life  is  that  by  which  the  spiritual 
life  is  effected  in  believers,"  (Tholuck),  "the 
active  and  animating  principle  of  Christian 
life."  (Ellicott.)]  In  Christ  Jesus.  Christ 
Jesus  is  the  Lord  and  Giver  of  spiritual  life: 
it  resides  in  him,  and  is  dispensed  by  him. 
(John  1:4.)  [Most  expositors,  we  think,  con- 
nect the  words  in  Christ  Jesus  with  the  verb. 
See  Winer  (p.  137),  De  Wette,  Philippi.  In 
Christ  Jesus  we  are  freed  from  condemnation. 
In  Christ  Jesus  we  are  freed  by  the  Spirit  of 
life  from  the  law,  the  reigning  power,  of  sin 
and  of  death.]  Hath  made  me  free.  [Com- 
pare 6:  20-22]:  the  indefinite  past  would  be 
more  appropriate,  freed  me,  referring  to  the 
time  of  conversion.  ["Here  Pnul  speaks  of 
himself  for  the  last  time  as  representing  all 
believers."  (Philippi.)]  From  the  law  of 
sin  and  death — [that is,  from  theircondemn- 
ing  and  controlling  power.     The   dying  re- 


Ch.  VIIL] 


ROMANS. 


185 


3  For  what  the  law  coiikl  not  do,  in  that  il  was  weak 
through  the  tlesh.God  seuUiiig  his  own  Son  in  the  like- 
ness of  sinful  llesh,  and  for  sin,  condemued  siu  iu  the 
flesh: 


lin  that  it  was  weak  through  the  tiesh,  God,  sending 

his  own  Son   in  the  likeness  of  ^sinful  Uesh  ^and 

4  for  siu,  condemned  sia  in  the  flesh:  that  the  <or- 


1  Or,  wherein 2  Gr.  Jleak  p/  i 


.3  Or,  and  a»  an  offering /or  liti 4  Or,  requirement. 


maiiiders  of  sin  were  still  left  to  molest  and 
weary  him.  (Shedd.)  Some  commentators 
regard  tlie  freeing  here  spoken  of  as  being  a 
deliverance  from  condemnation  rather  than 
from  the  dominion  uf  sin  and  death.  In  sup- 
port of  this  view  they  adduce  the  connection 
of  tliis  verse  witii  the  preceding  and  following, 
tlie  use  of  the  past  tense  of  the  verb,  and  the 
consonance  of  this  idea  with  the  apostle's 
general  and  leading  train  of  thought.  We 
should  wish  to  blend  the  two  views  together. 
And  we  think  there  is  no  insuperable  ditRculty 
in  supposing  that  the  apostle's  teaching  in 
these  first  four  verses  is  this,  that  by  virtue  of 
our  Lord's  condemning  sin  in  the  flesh,  and 
tl) rough  the  power  of  the  Spirit  of  life,  we 
are  freed  in  Christ  Jesus,  both  from  con- 
demnation and  from  the  reigning  power  of 
sin.  And  truly  such  a  declaration  as  this, 
which  speaks  to  our  sin-burdened  souls  of 
deliverance  from  condemnation  and  from  the 
dominion  of  sin,  may  well  be  deemed  by  us 
as  a  gospel  above  all  price.]  The  '  law '  is  not 
that  of  Moses  wliich  would  not  be  so  de- 
scribed ;  but,  as  above,  the  power  or  dominion 
of  sin  and  death.  Compare  7:  23,  25.  [Sin 
and  death,  closely  connected  as  cause  and 
eflect.  The  nouns  being  of  dissimilar  gender, 
each  has  the  article.] 

3.  For — explanatory  of  ver.  2,  showing 
the  method  of  that  liberation.  What  the  law 
could  not  do — literally,  the  iniposslbUity  of 
the  law,  or  the  thing  impossible  to  the  law.' 
AVhat  this  impossible  thing  of  the  law  was  is 
explained  by  what  follows;  but  he  first  shows 
why  this  yet  unexplained  thing  was  impossible 
to  the  law  ;  in  that  [because]  it  (the  law) 
was  weak  throu§:h  the  flesh.  The  flesh 
was  the  medium  through  which  the  law 
wrought,  and  having  to  ai^t  through  this 
medium,  it  proved  too  weak  [to  conquer  sin 
or  free  from  condemnation.  It  was  weak  and 
continued  so:  imperfect  tense.     "Paulclear- 


was  impossible  lor  the  law  to  confer  righteous- 
ness uijon  us."  On  this  weakness  of  the  law, 
which  is  but  the  weakness  of  our  flesh,  our 
helplessness  under  the  bondage  and  curse  of 
sin,  see  Gal.  3:  21;  Heb.  7:  18.]  By  'the 
flesh '  we  are  to  understand  human  nature  iu 
its  unregenerate  state,  as  in  7:5,  18.  God 
(did,  by)  sending  his  own  Son.  ["Just  as 
by  'his  own'  (compare  ver.  32),  the  filial 
relation  of  Christ  is  described  as  a  metaphj-s- 
ical  one,  so  by  'sending,'  etc.,  Christ's  per- 
sonality is  described  as  a  pre-existent  one. 
Compare  Gal.  4:4;  John  10:  36;  17:  3,  etc." 
(Philippi.)  "Thepre-existenceand  metaphys- 
ical sonshipof  Christ  are  implied."  (Meyer.)  ] 
The  next  two  clauses  explain  the  hoiv  of  this 
sending,  in  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh  ; 
the  proximate  wliy  of  it,  and  for  siu;  and 
the  last  clause  the  ultimate  purpose  of  it — to 
do  that  important  thing  which  the  law  could 
not  do,  which  now  at  last  is  plainly  deduced 
to  be  this,  condemned  sin  in  the  flesh. 
Observe  that  God  sent  his  own  Son  '  in  the 
likeness  of  sinful  flesh' — [literally,  'flesh  of 
sin  ']  not  in  sinful  flesh,  but  in  the  likeness  of 
it.  Christ  was  sent  into  the  world  in  the  out- 
ward appearance  of  a  sinful  man,  subject  to 
all  the  conditions  of  sinful  humanity,  except 
sin  itself.  (Heb.4:i5.)  [Christ  came  "in  the 
flesh,"  not,  as  Marcion  held,  in  the  likeness 
of  it.  We  bear  "the  flesh  of  sin,"  Christ  bore 
only  its  likeness,  which  likeness  implies  his 
sinlessness.  "He  had  a  nature  like  to  that 
of  sinful  men,  but  himself  liad  not  a  sinful 
nature."  (De  Wette.)  Tertullian  says :  "In 
putting  on  our  flesh  he  made  it  his  own  ;  in 
making  it  his  own,  he  made  it  sinless."  His 
fleshly  or  human  natures©  far  resembled  ours 
that  he  could  be  and  was  "tempted  in  all 
points  like  as  we  are,  yet  without  sin."  So 
the  Divine  One  was  made  or  appeared  "in 
the  likeness  of  men."  (Phii.2:7.)  Me3-er  finds 
in  these  verses  {%  s)  a  decisive  negative  answer 


ly  affirms,"  says  Calvin,  "that  our  sins  were  I  to  the  question  whether  the  Son  of  God  would 
expiated  by  the  death  of  Christ,  because  it  |  have  appeared  as  man  had  man  not  become 


J  This  maybe  regarded  as  in  the  accusative,  either  I  apposition  with  the  principal  sentence  following.  So 
absolute  (Olshaujien),  or  after  a  verb  (did)  understood,  !  Buttniaun,  Winer,  De  Wette,  Meyer,  Philippi,  Godet. 
but  more  probably  il  is  in  the  nominative  absolute,  in    — (F.) 


186 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  VIII. 


4  That  the  righteousness  of  the  law  might  be  fulfilled  I       dinance  of  the  law  might  be  fulfilled  in  us,  who 
in  us,  who  walk  not  after  tlie  flesli,  but  after  the  Spirit.  |    5  walk  not  after  the  flesh,  but  alter  the  spirit.    For 


sinful.]  And  for  sin — it  was  'sin'  that  made 
his  coming  MccesA'ary.  r'gJQ'  was  the  special 
name  of  the  sin-offering  in  the  Old  Testament, 
and  many  (Calvin,  Hodge,  and  others)  give 
it  this  sense  here.  (See  marginal  reference  to 
the  Revised  Version  ;  the  Canterbury  llevi- 
sion  transposes  text  and  margin.)  But  the 
expression:  'for  —  that  is,  concerning  sin,' 
seems  to  have  a  more  genersil  reference — 
namely,  that  the  sending  of  the  Son  of  God 
into  this  world  had  respect  to  sin — that  is,  to 
its  condemnation  and  extirpation.]  The  ulti- 
mate object  of  God's  sending  his  Son  is  now 
expressed  in  the  words  'condemned  sin  in 
the  flesh' — what  is  the  meaning  of  this,  and 
liow  did  he  do  it?  He  condemned  sin  by 
breaking  its  power,  by  robbing  it  of  its  domin- 
ion, which  is  a  very  practical  condemnation 
of  it;  and  he  did  this  'in  the  flesh,'  in  that 
very  human  nature  in  which  sin  had  always 
before  so  easily  triumphed  :  the  sphere  of  its 
many  and  long-repeated  victories  was  now  at 
last  made  the  sphere  of  its  signal  and  decisive 
defeat:  yes,  decisive  defeat;  for  not  for  him- 
self alone  did  Christ  condemn  sin  ;  but  his 
victory  over  it  insured,  as  the  next  verse  goes 
on  to  state,  the  final  victory  over  it  on  the 
part  of  all  his  people.  In  fine,  this  important 
verse  maj' be  paraphrased  as  follows:  "For 
God,  by  sending  his  own  Son  into  the  world, 
in  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh  (but  not  in  the 
reality^  so  far  as  sin  is  concerned),  and  for  sin 
(the  existence  of  sin  being  the  occasion  for 
sending  him),  did  what  it  was  impossible  for 
the  law  to  do — namely,  broke  the  power  of  sin, 
and  soconvicted  and  condemned  it  asa  usurper 
and  a  tyrant,  and  did  this  in  the  very  nature 
through  whose  weakness  that  usurpation  and 
and  tyranny  had  been  so  long  maintained." 
[Similarly  the  "Bible  Commentary":  "He 
'condemned  sin  in  the  flesh'  as  having  no  right- 
ful place  or  power  there,  condemned  it  as  an 


enemy  to  be  by  his  help  conquered  and  cast 
out."  De  Wette  says:  "  Thus  instead  of  sin's 
bringing  condemnation  to  us  as  hitherto,  it  is 
itself  now  condemned  and  has  lost  its  power." 
"God  accomplished  the  judgment  of  con- 
demnation pronounced  against  sin,  and  he 
did  this  in  sin's  appropriate  sphere,  viz.,  in 
the  flesh."  (Cremer. )  The  law  could  con- 
demn sin  in  one  sense,  but  could  not  put  sin 
to  death,  nor  save  the  guilty.  "Christ's  holy 
life  wasalivingcondemnation  of  sin"  (Godet), 
but  his  expiatory  death,  wherein  he  bore  our 
sins,  and  curse,  was  its  principal  and  final  con- 
demnation.^ Milton  very  happily  versifies 
the  Pauline  theology  on  this  point  in  Para- 
dise Lost,  XII.,  388,  where  he  speaksof  Christ's 
joining  "Manhood  to  Godhead,"  and  of  his 
"coming  in  the  flesh, 

To  a  reproachful  life  and  cursed  death."] 

4.  That — in  order  that,  the  purpose  for 
which  God  'condemned  sin  in  the  flesh' — 
the  righteousness  of  the  law — the  right- 
eous requirement  of  the  law — might  be  I'ul- 
filled  in  us — really,  now;  perfectly,  by-and- 
by.  [The  word  'righteousness'  (SiKaito/ua)  oc- 
curs here  for  the  last  time  in  this  Epistle. 
Compare  1:32;  2: '26;  5:16,18.  Most  modern 
commentators  think  this  term,  in  order  to 
suit  the  context,  must  be  here  referred  solely 
to  the  work  of  sanctification.  But  the  right- 
eous demand  of  the  law  requires,  not  only 
perfect  obedience,  but  punishment  for  trans- 
gression. See  1:32.  As  in  5:16  'righteous- 
ness' (hiKaimfxa)  is  Opposed  to  condemnation, 
so  there  is  a  similar  antithesis  here.  Compare 
the  verb  'condemned'  with  its  related  'con- 
demnation' in  ver.  1.  That  the  apostle  here 
has  reference  to  justification  as  well  as  to 
moral  renewal  is  also  evident  from  the  passive 
form  of  the  verb  and  from  the  preposition: 
'  might  be  fulfilled  in  us  ; '  not  that  we  might 


1  Prof.  Shedd  thus  makes  condemned  equivalent  to 
"vicariously  punished" — God  thus  condemning  sin  in 
the  body  or  per.son  of  Christ.  Many  refer  this  con- 
demnation of  sin  to  the  removal  of  sinfulness  rather 
than  to  the  expiation  of  guilt,  because  Paul  does  not 
say:  in  Itis  flesh,  and  because  he  here  treats  of  sancti- 
fication rather  than  of  justification.  Yet  Paul  never 
in  his  scheme  of  doctrine  widely  separates  a  sanctify- 
ing from  a  justifying  righteousness.    And,  again :  in 


what  way  can  sin  be  extirpated  other  than  by  the 
death  of  Christ  and  by  the  intercession  of  a  crucified 
and  risen  Saviour?  "  God  by  the  death  of  his  Son,  so 
condemned  sin,  as  by  this  very  (expiatory)  condemna- 
tion to  destroy  it."  (Philippi.)  Of  course,  this  view 
does  not  set  aside  the  fact  that  the  incarnation  itself  of 
the  spotless  Son  of  God  was  a  virtual  condemnation  of 
sin  in  the  flesh.— (F.) 


Ch.  VIIL] 


ROMANS. 


187 


5  For  they  that  are  after  the  flesh  do  iiiiiKi  the  things 
of  the  flesh;  but  they  that  are  after  the  Spirit,  the 
things  of  the  Spirit. 


they  tliat  are  after  the  flesh  do  mind  the  things  of 
the   flesh;   but   they  that  are  after   the  Spirit  the 


fulfill,  or  even  that  it  might  be  fulfilled  by 
us.  To  suppose  that  any  man,  though  re- 
newed in  mind,  can  perfectly  obey  all  the 
demands  of  the  law  so  as  thereby  to  free 
himself  thenceforth  from  condemnation  and 
secure  acquittal  at  the  judgment,  is  to  make 
nonsense  of  much  which  the  apostle  thus 
far  has  written.  "The  interpretation  which 
makes  the  apostle  say  that  we  are  delivered 
from  the  law  by  the  work  of  Christ,  in  order 
that  the  complete  obedience  which  the  law 
demands  might  be  rendered  by  us,  supposes 
what  all  Scrii)ture  and  experience  contra- 
dicts." (Hodge.)  "Only  because  we  are 
justified  in  Christ  does  tlie  sin  perpetually 
cleaving  to  us  no  longer  come  into  account. 
Only  thus  can  the  holy  acts,  which  are  the 
fruits  of  God's  Spirit  in  those  who  are  right- 
eous in  Christ,' be  called  a  fulfilling  of  the 
law.''  (Philippi.)  "Christ  is  the  end  of  the 
law  for  righteousness  to  every  one  that  be- 
lieveth."  The  Christian,  indeed,  must  have 
l)ersonal  and  real  righteousness,  in  order  to 
bo  acce]>ted  of  God  in  the  judgment,  or  to 
fulfill  his  high  calling  here.  We  were  freed 
from  the  law  and  have  become  united  to 
Christ,  not  that  we  may  indulge  in  sin,— God 
forbid!— but  that  we  may  bring  forth  fruit 
unto  God.  (':*■)  Yet  while  we  strive  with 
all  possible  earnestness  for  a  sanctified  life, 
we  would  not  dare  to  present  such  a  life  as 
the  ground  of  our  justification.]  Who  walk 
[being  such  persons  as  walk,  etc.,  the  article 
with  the  participle  defining  a  class]  not  after 
the  flesh,  but  after  the  Spirit,  whose  con- 
duct and  course  of  life  are  regulated,  not  ac- 
cording to  the  promptings  of  the  natural  man, 
but  according  to  the  dictates  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  ""When  the  soul  is  wedded  to  the 
Spirit,  the  flesh  follows,  like  the  handmaid 
who  follows  the  wedded  mistress  to  her  hus- 
band's home,  being  thenceforward  no  longer 
the  servant  of  the  soul,  but  of  the  Spirit." 
(Tertullian.)  [See  Gal.  5: 16, 18,  where  Spirit, 
also  without  the  article,  denotes  the  Holy 
Spirit.^    Dr.  Hodge  remarks  that  this  "second 


clause  of  the  verse  is  specially  pertinent  if  the 
first  treats  of  justification,  [showing  that]  the 
benefits  of  Christ's  death  are  experienced  only 
by  those  who  walk  nt)t  after  the  flesh.  .  .  . 
In  the  other  view  of  the  passage,  the  latter 
clause  is  altogether  unnecessary.  Why  should 
Paul  say  that  Christ  died  in  order  that  they 
should  be  holy  who  are  holy?"] 

Introductivn  to  Ver.  5-27.— Justification  is, 
indeed,  necessary  to  the  existence  of  sanctifi- 
cation,  but  sanctification  is  equally  necessary 
to  the  evidence  of  justification.  [A  gospel 
which  should  speak  of  a  justification  that 
favored  indulgence  in  sin  would  be  at  once 
despoiled  of  all  glory.  They  who  are  justified 
in  Christ  are  also  renewed  in  heart,  and  would 
not  desire  to  live  in  sin,  even  if  they  could  be 
permitted  to  do  so.]  The  justified  will  cer- 
tainly walk  in  newness  of  life: 

(a)  Because  their  inward  moral  disposition 
is  thoroughly  changed,     (ver.  5-8.) 

5.  The  for  is  explanatory  of  the  last  clause 
of  ver.  4  [showing  that  and  why  there  is  no 
agreement  between  the  two  methods  of  walk- 
ing there  spoken  of].  They  that  are  alter 
the  flesh.  Compare  John  3:6.  [Such  are 
wholly  fleshen  (<rdpKivoi),  even  their  minds  are 
of  flesh,  possessed  and  ruled  by  the  flesh. 
(Col.  2:18.)]  Do  mind  the  things  of  the 
flesh.  They  think  of,  care  for,  strive  after 
[WiclifF:  "savor"],  'the  things  of  the  flesh  '  — 
that  i.s,  its  objects  of  desire.  But  they  that 
are  alter  the  Spirit  (do  mind)  the  things 
of  the  Spirit.  Their  aims  and  objects  of 
desire  are  spiritual.  [The  Canterbury  Ke- 
vision  refers  the  word  'Spirit' — occurring  in 
this  verse,  in  ver.  6,  13,  and  the  fir.st  in  ver.  9 
— to  the  human  spirit.  It  is  sometimes  diflS- 
cult  to  determine  whether,  in  certain  cases, 
this  word  denotes  the  human  spirit  or  the 
divine,  especially  as  in  regenerate  persons  the 
human  is  supi)osed  to  be  acted  upon  by,  or 
even  conjoined  with,  the  divine.  The  spirit  of 
man,  the  highest  part  of  his  nature,  is  defined 
by  Cremer  as  "the  divine  life  principle,"  or 
"the  principle  of  the  God-related  life,"  and 


1  In  a  telic  clause  or  verse  like  this,  introduced  by 
'that'  =  in  order  that  (J-va-) ,  nothing  is  stated  to  have 
actually  occurred,  and  hence  the  subjective  negative 
ni  is  used  rather  than  ov.     The  sauie  is  true  in  impera- 


tive and  subjunctive  clauses,  iih,  however,  is  regularly 
used  with  articled  participles  which  refer  to  a  supposed 
genus  or  class,  as  in  4  :  5  ;  14  :  22. — (F.) 


188 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  VIII. 


6  For  to  be  carnally  minded  is  death ;  but  to  be 
spiritually  minded  is  life  and  peace. 

7  Because  the  carnal  luind  is  enmity  against  God: 
for  it  is  not  subject  to  the  law  of  God,  neither  indeed 
can  be. 


6  things  of  the  Spirit.    For  the  mind  of  the  flesh  is 
death  ;  but  the  mind  of  the  Spirit  is  life  and  peace: 

7  because  the  mind  of  the  fltsh  is  enmity  against  God  ; 
for  it  is  not  subject  to  the  law  of  God,  neither  indeed 


by  EUicott  as  "the  seat  of  the  inworking 
powers  of  grace."  Prof.  Kiddle,  in  Laiige's 
"Bible  Work,"  also  speaks  of  it  as  "the  point 
of  contact  with  divine  influences."  As  con- 
nected with  man's  body  and  soul,  the  psy- 
chical or  natural  man,  it  needs  cleansing  and 
sanctification — in  other  words,  needs  to  be 
divinely  spiritualized.  In  ver.  10,  the  spirit, 
as  opposed  to  'body,'  seems  to  denote  "our 
spirit."  (ver.  16.)  In  other  instances  it  may 
be  indeed  regarded  as  the  human  spirit,  yet 
as  renewed  and  pervaded  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Meyer,  however,  contends  that  "it  never 
means,  not  even  in  contrast  to  flesh,  the  're- 
newed spiritual  nature'  (Philippi),  but  the 
sanctifying  divine  principle  itself  objectivelj' 
and  distinct  from  the  human  spirit."  Yet  in 
ver.  10  he  makes  'spirit,'  in  contrast  with 
'body,'  refer  to  the  human  spirit.] 

6.  The  spiritual  man  cannot  mind  the 
things  of  the  flesh,  for  to  be  carnally 
miniled,  to  have  the  thoughts,  cares,  and 
aims  occupied  with  the  things  of  the  flesh,  is 
death — is  spiritual  death,  and  tends  to,  and 
ends  in,  eternal  death.  ["The  minding  of 
the  flesh"  (nearly  equivalent  to  purpose  of 
the  flesh)  in  the  marginal  reference  of  our 
Common  Version  very  well  expresses  the 
sense  of  the  original.  Rev.  J.  Owen,  in  Cal- 
vin's "Commentary,"  says  that  "minded- 
ness,"  the  abstract  of  minding,  would  be  more 
correct.  Some  commentators  use  the  expres- 
sion— striving  of  the  flesh.  On  pages  232,  seq., 
of  Lange's  "Commentary  on  Eomans"  will 
be  found  an  excursus  on  the  Biblical  terms — 
bodj',  flesh,  soul,  and  spirit.]  But  to  be 
spiritually  minded  [properly,  the  mind  of 
Ihe  Spirit,  the  animus  or  disposition  which 
the  Spirit  gives].  To  be  spiritually  minded  is 
to  have  the  thoughts,  cares,  and  aims  occupied 
with  the  things  of  the  Spirit,  with  the  truths 
and  hopes  that  he  inspires,  the  blessings  that 
he  confers,  the  dispositions  that  he  produces. 
Is  life  and  peace.  Peace  is  added  to 
strengthen  the  argument.  Says  John  Howe: 
"Life  and  peace  in  conjunction,  not  raging 
life,  not  stupid  peace,  but  a  placid,  peaceful 
life,  and  a  vital,  vigorous  rest  and  peace.  It 
is  not  the  life  of  a  fury,  nor  the  peace  of  a 


stone;  it  is  a  life  that  hath  peace  in  it,  and 
peace  that  hath  life  in  it."  Observe  how  life 
and  death  are  defined  in  this  verse:  Life,  ac- 
cording to  this  apostolical  definition,  is  some- 
thing more  than  mere  animated  existence; 
death  is  something  more  than  the  separation 
of  soul  and  bod3^  something  difl^erent  from 
the  mere  negation  of  conscious  existence, 
or  annihilation.  The  Scriptures  cannot  be 
rightly  interpreted  if  these  apostolic  defini- 
tions of  life  and  death  are  ignored.  [There 
is,  indeed,  a  blissful  peace  in  spiritual  mind- 
edness,  but  the  ground  of  any  true  and  abid- 
ing peace  must  be  found  outside  of  ourselves, 
not  in  any  inward  perfection,  but  in  a  con- 
sciousness of  our  good  estate  in  Christ.  In 
Christ  alone  can  our  souls  find  their  only  true 
resting  place.  "Our  heart  is  restless  till  it 
rests  in  thee."  (Augustine.)  Only  as  we  are 
justified  b3'  faith  can  we  be  freed  from  con- 
demnation; only  as  we  are  justified  by  faith 
can  we  have  peace  with  God  or  in  our  own 
souls.  De  Wette  says  it  is  "  wholly  false"  to 
mix  up  in  this  passage  the  doctrine  of  justi- 
fication, even  when  freedom  from  condem- 
nation is  spoken  of.  If  so,  then  farewell 
to  peace.  "How,"  asks  Olshausen,  "can  an 
exposition  of  the  Christian  religious  develop- 
ment be  possible  unless  the  doctrines  of  satis- 
faction and  justification  form  the  turning 
points  in  it?"] 

The  next  verse  is  an  illustration  and  con- 
firmation of  the  first  part  of  ver.  6. 

7.  Because  the  carnal  mind.  This  shows 
the  reason  why  'the  carnal  mind' — the  mind 
of  the  flesh— is  death,  because  it  is  enmity 
against  God  [who  is  the  Giver  of  life].  This 
is  a  very  strong  statement ;  it  arraigns  as  at 
enmity  with  God  every  unregenerate  man 
and  woman.  For  this  carnal  mind,  as  the 
connection  plainly  shows,  is  predicated  of  all 
who  have  not  been  born  of  the  Spirit,  and 
not  merely  of  those  who  are  grosser  sinners, 
exceptionally  sensual  and  polluted.  Compare 
ver.  9.  The  apostle  immediately  brings  for- 
ward a  plain,  practical  proof  of  this  grave 
charge.  For  it  is  not  subject  to  the  law 
of  God.  It  does  not  submit  itself  to  that 
divine  rule  of  life  which  is  the  practical  ex- 


Ch.  VIII  ] 


ROMANS. 


189 


8  So  then  they  that  are  in  the  flesh  cannot  please 
God. 

9  But  ye  are  not  in  the  flesli,  but  in  the  Spirit,  if  so 
be  tliat  the  Spirit  oi"  (iod  dwull  iu  you.  Now  if  any 
man  have  not  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  he  is  none  of  his. 


8  can  it  be:  and  they  that  are  iu  the  flesh  cannot 

9  please  God.  But  ye  are  not  in  the  flesh,  but  iu  the 
Spirit,  if  so  be  that  ihe  Spirit  of  God  dwellflh  iu 
you.    But  if  any  man  hath  not  the  Spirit  of  Christ, 


pression  of  friendship  with  God.  Neither 
indeed  can  be  [without  directly  contradict- 
ing its  nature].  "In  just  so  far  as  it  (the 
carnal  mind)  exists,  it  evidently  does  not  sub- 
mit itself  to  the  law  of  God;  and  in  so  far  as 
it  has  passed  away  and  departed  from  a  man, 
it  does  not  at  all  exist,  so  that  even  thus  it  is 
not  subject."  (fficumenius. )  If  one  should 
object  that  the  argument  proves  too  much, — 
for  even  the  regenerate,  spiritual  man  does 
not  always  and  perfectly  obey  the  law  of 
God, — the  answer  is,  that  this  is  accounted  for 
only  by  the  truth  of  the  proposition.  The 
reason  why  the  new  man's  obedience  is  not 
uniform  and  perfect,  is  the  fact  that  [while 
sin  does  not  reign  in  his  mortal  body,  yet] 
the  remains  of  the  old  nature  still  cling  to 
him;  so  that  the  objection,  in  fact,  confirms 
the  proposition.  "How  can  snow  be  warmed  ?  " 
asks  Augustine.  "By  making  it  cease  to  be 
snow,"  he  replies.  [Compare  Paul's  descrip- 
tion here  of  those  persons  whose  being  and 
walk  are  conformed  to  the  flesh,  whose  very 
minds  are  of  flesh,  and  which,  as  being  wholly 
Carnal,  are  at  enmity  with  God  and  will  not 
submit  to  his  law,  with  the  description  which  he 
gives  in  the  last  part  of  chapter  7  of  that  one 
(himself),  who  though  with  h\?,  flesh  serving 
the  law  of  sin,  yet  with  his  mind  serves  the 
law  of  God  and  delights  in  that  law  after  the 
inward  man.  Cannot  any  one  see  the  vast 
diff"erence?  Meyer,  indeed,  says  that  ^'' After 
conversion  the  flesh  with  its  striving  is  ethic- 
ally dead,"  and  he  refers  to  6  :  6,  seq. ;  also  to 
Gal.  5  :  24:  "They  that  are  Christ's  have  cru- 
cified the  flesh  with  its  passions  and  lusts." 
This  verse  has  sometimes  caused  us  to  trem- 
ble, yet  our  hope  has  strengthened  itself  in 
this  thought — namely,  that  the  cruciflxion  of 
tlie  flesh  may  denote  a  lingering  death.] 

8.  So  then  should  rather  be  translated 
and;  it  (Se)  is  continuative  [and  "slightly 
oppositive  "]  rather  than  conchisive}  By  the 
phrase  they  that    are  in  the  flesh  we   are 


to  understand  not  they  that  are  in  the  body, 
but  they  that  are  carnally  minded  (ver.  6, 7), 
and  that  walk  after  the  flesh,  (ver.  4.)  [In 
the  flesh  denotes  "the  ethical  life-element  in 
which  they  subsist,  and  which  is  the  oppo- 
site of  being  in  the  Spirit,  and  in  Christ.'' 
(Meyer.)]  They  cannot  please  God;  since 
their  disposition,  their  mind  is  enmity  toward 
him,  their  persons  cannot  be  pleasing  to  him. 
[Augustine  condensed:  Not  they  who  are 
in  the  body,  but  they  who  trust  in  the  flesh 
and  follow  the  lusts  of  the  flesh,  cannot  please 
!  God.  Whatl  did  not  the  holy  patriarchs, 
prophets,  martyrs,  please  him  ?  They  carried 
the  flesh,  but  were  not  carried  by  it.  Not 
they  who  live  in  this  world,  but  they  who  live 
a  life  of  carnal  pleasure  in  this  world,  they 
cannot  please  God.] 

(6)  The  Spirit  of  God  dwells  in  and  actuates 

them.        (Ver.  9-13.) 

9.  But  ye  [ye  on  the  other  hand.  (Meyer.)] 
are  not  in  the  flesh— that  is,  not  carnally 
minded;  but  in  the  Spirit— that  is,  spir- 
itually minded;  if  so  be  that  the  Spirit 
of  God  dwell  in  you  [has  in  you  a  per- 
manent home].  The  indwelling  of  the  Spirit 
of  God  is  what  makes  the  diflference  be- 
tween the  carnally  minded  and  the  spirit- 
ually minded.  See  1  Cor.  3:  16;  6:  19;  2 
Tim.  1:  14.]  [Meyer  refers  the  first  "Spirit" 
to  the  Holy  Spirit,  not,  with  Philippi,  to  a 
"spiritual  nature."  The  'if  so  be,'  if  indeed, 
does  not  imply  an}'  real  doubt,  yet,  according 
to  Meyer,  "it  conveys  an  indirect  incitement 
to  self-examination."  'Dwell'  in  you  must 
not  be  diluted  to  dwelleth  among  you.  See 
1  Cor.  G:  19;  Gal.  4:  6.  But  can  there  be 
in  the  regenerate  indwelling  sin  and  the  in- 
dwelling Spirit?  Most  certainly.  Yet  the 
Spirit  inhabits,  rules,  and  fills  the  inner  or 
real  man,  while  sin  dwells  rather  in  the  fleshen 
self.  And  thus  it  is  that  the  "flesh  lusteth 
against  the  Spirit  and  the  Spirit  against  the 
flesh,  that  ye  may  not  do  the  things  that  ye 


1  This  little  particle  (6e)  occurs  six  times  in  this  and 
the  three  following  verses.  Its  exact  force,  according  to 
Ellicott,  "  is  never  simply  connective,  and  it  never  loses 
all  shades  of  its  true  oppositive  character."  It  often 
"  implies  a  further  considerati  jn  of  the  subject  under 


another  aspect."    In  translating  it  we  have  to  choose 

between  such  words  as  but,  moreover,  now,  and,  etc. 
In  this  verse,  Paul,  by  means  of  Se  "passes  from 
'  enmity  toward  God  '  to  the  other  aspect  of  the  matter, 
'  cannot  please  God.'  "    (Winer.)  —(F.) 


190 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  VIII. 


10  And  if  Christ  be  in  you,  the  body  is  dead  because  I  10  he  is  none  of  his.    And  if  Christ  is  in  you,  the  body 
of  siu  ;  but  the  spirit  is  life  because  of  righteousness.      |        is  dead  because  of  sin  ;  but  the  spirit  is  life  because 


would."  Rev.Ver.  Gal.  5: 17;  comp.  Rom. 7: 19, 
"the  good  which  I  would  I  do  not."]  Now 
if  any  man  (one)  have  not.  [On  the  use  of 
the  direct  negative  after  the  conditional  'if,' 
(the  'not'  qualifying  simply  the  verb  'have'), 
see  Winer  477,  Buttmann  345,  347  ;  compare 
also  11:  21.]  The  Spirit  ol"  Christ  here  is 
the  same  as  the  Spirit  of  God  in  the  preceding 
clause.  The  two  expressions  are  equivalent 
and  interchangeable.  Compare  [Acts  16;  7, 
in  Revised  Version]  Gal.  4:6;  Phil.  1  :  19; 
1  Peter  1 :  11.  [To  have  in  us  the  Spirit 
which  belongs  to  Christ,  and  which  he  can 
impart,  as  with  his  breath  (John  20:22),  is  the 
sameas  to  have  Christ  himself,  (ver.  lo;  Eph.  3:i7.) 
Paul  here  speaks  of  the  Spirit  of  Christ  be- 
cause he  would  make  prominent  the  Christian 
characteristics  of  believers.  "The  Spirit  of 
God,  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  an  illustrious  testi- 
mony concerning  the  Holy  Trinity."  (Ben- 
gel.)]  This  passage  is  sometimes  used  in  the 
sense — 'if  any  man  have  not  a  Christlike 
spirit,  he  is  none  of  his' — a  sound.  Scriptural 
sentiment;  for  the  object  of  the  Spirit  of 
Christ  dwelling  in  us  is  to  make  our  spirits 
like  to  Christ's;  but  it  is  the  personal  Spirit 
of  Christ  that  is  here  meant,  and  not  a  dispo- 
sition like  Christ's.  He — rather.  This  man. 
There  is  an  emphasis  in  the  pronoun  used 
here  not  adequately  represented  by  the  unem- 
phatic  'he.'  Is  none  of  his — that  is,  he  does 
not  belong  to  Christ,  and  will  not  be  owned 
by  him  at  last. 

The  illustration  of  the  second  part  of  ver.  6 
is  now  taken  up,  in  contrast  to  the  foregoing. 

10.  And  if  Christ  be  in  you  is  the  same 
as  'if  the  Spirit  of  God  dwells  in  you.' 
["The  indwelling  of  Christ  ...  is  the  result 
of  the  working  of  the  Holy  Spirit  on  the  one 
side  and  the  subjective  reception  of  man 
(through  faith,  Eph.  3:  17)  on  the  other." 
(Ellicott.)]  The  body  is  dead  —  surely 
doomed  to  die — because  [on  account)  of  sin. 
See  ch.  5  :  12.  But  the  spirit  is  life — has 
life  [wrapped  up  in  itself],  and  shall  have 
eternal  life,  because  {on  account)  of  right- 
eousness—  that  righteousness  which  is  al- 
ready implanted,  and  which  will  be  perfected. 
['Dead'  (vcKpds)  is  often  used,  says  Prof.  Cre- 
mer,  "to  denote  the  state  of  men  still  living, 
and  we  may  understand  it  of  the  state  of 


those  whose  life  is  appointed  to  death  as  the 
punishment  of  sin."  The  death  referred  to 
in  this  verse  is  physical — the  death  of  the 
body,  not  a  death  to  sin,  nor  a  rendering 
inactive  of  the  "body  of  sin,"  as  in  6:  6. 
Prof.  Stuart  regards  it  as  the  mortifying  of 
our  carnal  passions,  the  crucifixion  of  the 
flesh.  But  is  sin  the  ground  or  cause  of  this 
death,  as  righteousness  is  the  cause  or  ground 
of  life?  The  Revisers  fitiled  to  bring  out  tlie 
strong  contrast  here  implied  by  "indeed" 
{iJi€v)  and  "but"  (Se).  It  is  true,  the  apostle 
would  say,  that  the  bod^'  is  dead,  is  subject  to 
death,  must  die  by  reason  of  sin,  but  the  spirit 
is  life,  etc.  Even  the  believer's  body  partakes 
of  death,  is  already  in  a  death  condition,  is  a 
"living  corpse,"  on  account  of  his  own  sin 
and  on  account  of  his  race  connection  with 
Adam.  In  Adam  all  died  and  all  die.  And 
as  the  primal  groundof  bodily  death  is  Adam's 
sin,  so  the  primal  ground  of  our  Spirit's 
eternal  life  of  blessedness  is  Christ's  right- 
eousness, and  not  our  own.  (Godet. )  "The 
eternal  life  is  based  on  the  justification  that 
has  taken  placefor  Christ's  sake,  and  is  appro- 
priated by  faith.  .  .  .  The  moral  righteous- 
ness of  life,  because  never  perfect,  can  never 
be  the  ground  of 'the  life.' "  (Meyer.)  "The 
ground  of  life  is,  and  remains  alone,  the 
righteousness  imputed  to  faith,  from  which 
issues  the  righteousness  of  life,  or  spiritual 
disposition  by  which  faith  is  attested  and 
maintained.  ...  To  refer  righteousness  in 
this  verse  to  the  righteousness  of  faith  is  not 
inconsistent  with  referring  'spirit'  to  the 
human  spirit  become  "pneumatic.  For  the 
first  thing  the  human  spirit  does  when  re- 
newed by  the  Spirit  of  God,  is  by  faith  to  lay 
hold  on  the  righteousness  of  Christ  and  the 
eternal  life  which  that  righteousness  secures." 
(Philippi.)]  The  words  'body'  and  'spirit' 
here  are  to  be  understood,  literally,  of  the 
human  body  and  human  spirit:  for  (a)  the 
change  from  the  word  'flesh'  (ver.  5»)  to  the 
word  'body,'  is  presumptive  evidence  of  the 
literal  sense;  (i)  the  expressions,  'on  account 
of  sin'  and  'on  account  of  righteousness,' 
require  this  sense — not  (dead)  "to  sin,"  or 
'in  respect  to  sin,'  as  in  6:  2,  11 ;  (c)  the  fol- 
lowing verse  decisively  confirms  this  sense,  so 
far  as  the  word    '  body '   is   concerned,    and 


Ch.  VJII.] 


ROMANS. 


191 


11  But  if  the  Spirit  of  hiiu  that  raised  up  Jesus  from 
tlie  (lead  dwell  iu  you,  lie  that  raised  up  Christ  from 
the  dead  shall  al.-o  quicken  your  mortal  bodies  by  his 
Spirit  that  dwelleih  iu  you. 


11  of  righteousness.  But  if  the  Spirit  of  him  that 
raised  up  Jesus  Irom  the  dead  dwelleth  iu  you,  he 
that  raised  up  Christ  Jesus  troui  the  dead  shall 
quicken  also  your  mortal  bodies  i  through  his  Spirit 
that  dwelleth  in  you. 


1  Maov  aDcieot  aatborities  read  becauae  of. 


indirectly  confirms  the  same  in  respect  to  the 
antithetical  term  'spirit.'  [It  was  Andrew 
Fuller's  dying  request  that  Dr.  Rj'land 
should  preach  his  funeral  sermon  from  this 
text.] 

11.  ["According  to  ver  10,  there  was  still 
left  one  j)owcr  of  death,  that  over  the  body. 
Paul  now  disposes  of  this  also."  (Meyer.) 
"  According  to  the  present  verse,  death  is  to 
be  vanquished  by  a  gradual  process,  and  fin- 
ally to  be  swallowed  up  in  life."  (Philippi.) 
"The  divine  life  becomes  through  the  Holy 
Spirit  not  only  a  quality  of  tli/i  human  spirit: 
it  becomes  its  nature  in  such  wise  that  it  can 
diffuse  itself  through  the  whole  person,  from 
the  spirit  to  the  soul  and  body."  (Godet.) 
To  the  natural  eye  and  sense,  the  grave  is  a 
dark-looking  place,  and  would  seem  to  be  the 
sad  end  of  our  being;  and  with  such  natural 
views  and  feelings,  we  are  tempted  to  say: 
For  what  nothingness  hast  thou  created  all 
the  sons  of  men.  (ps.89:47.)  But  the  apostle 
never  appears  to  have  had  a  doubt — certainly 
he  has  never  expressed  a  doubt — respecting 
our  survival  of  the  tomb.  He  discusses  at 
large  in  one  of  his  epistles  the  nature  of  the 
resurrection  body,  but  never  the  question  : 
"Does  death  end  all?"]  But  if  the  Spirit 
of  him  that  raised  up  [literallj',  awakened] 
Jesus  from  the  dead  dwell  in  you.  We 
have  here  the  previous  supposition,  with  an 
important  addition,  'of  him  that  raised  up 
Jesus  from  the  dead'— an  addition  which  is 
of  vital  importance  in  tire  apostle's  argument, 
as  if  he  had  said,  'this  Spirit  is  powerful  over 
death,  and  makes  you  partakers  of  Christ's 
resurrection  ;  you  have  in  you  the  same  power 
which  caused  Christ  to  rise.'  ['Raised  up 
Jesus'  .  .  .  'raised  up  Christ.'  "The  name 
Jesus  refers  to  himself,  the  name  Christ  to 
us."  (Bengel.)  Hofmann  remarks  that  the 
personal  resurrection  of  Jesus  merely  assures 
us  that  God  can  raise  us,  but  his  resurrection, 
regarded  as  that  of  the  Christ,  assures  us  that 


he  will  do  so  actually.  Godet  notices  the  ap- 
propriateness of  the  term  awakening  (as  if 
from  sleep)  applied  to  Christ,  and  the  term 
quickening,  used  of  our  mortal  bodies,  de- 
cayed and  dissolved  in  dust.  According  to 
Alford,  Paul  does  not  say  shall  raise  our 
mortal  bodies,  "because  it  is  rot  merely  the 
resurrection  of  the  body  which  is  in  the  apos- 
tle's view."  Prof.  Stuart  regards  this  quick- 
ening of  the  body  as  wholly  spiritual,  making 
the  body  "a  willing  instrument  of  righteous- 
ness." And  the  principal  reason  for  his  view 
is  that  the  bodies  of  the  wicked,  as  well  as  the 
righteous,  will  be  raised  up  at  the  last  day. 
This  is  true;  but  the  wicked  will  not  attain 
unto  the  blessed  resurrection  of  the  just,  their 
bodies  will  not  be  like  the  spiritual,  heavenly 
bodies  of  the  glorified,  and  will  not  be  con- 
formed to  the  body  of  Christ's  glory.  Cer- 
tainly the  resurrection  of  the  body  must  be 
here  the  chief  reference.  And  when  this 
quickening  takes  place,  the  body  will  no  more 
be  called  dead,  or  even  mortal,  since  it  will 
be  no  more  a  body  of  sin.  The  apostle's  lan- 
guage supposes  that  all  those  whom  he  ad- 
dresses would  die  before  the  personal  coming 
of  Christ,  and  therefore  he  did  not  regard  this 
coming  as  something  to  happen  within  the 
lifetime  of  that  generation.  Compare  14  :  8.] 
By  his  Spirit  that  dwelleth  in  you  ;  or, 
according  to  a  different  reading  of  the  original 
text,  on  account  of  his  Spirit  which  dwells  in 
you.  The  two  readings  of  the  Greek  text 
stand  nearly  on  an  equality  in  respect  to  the 
support  which  they  have  from  ancient  manu- 
scripts, quotations,  and  versions.  The  read- 
ing on  account  of  his  Spirit  seems  to  me  to 
have  strong  ijiternal  evidence  in  its  favor:  1, 
as  being  the  more  difficult  reading,  according 
to  the  well-known  rule  of  Bengel^:,  2,  on 
account  of  the  emphatic  way  in  which  the 
indwelling  of  the  Spirit  is  expressed  (to 
ivoiKoxiv^  in  place  of  oUei,  ver.  9,  11)  ;  3,  as 
yielding  a  very  pertinent  and  striking  sense, 


MVe  have  often  thought  of  this  "rule"  when  cor- 
recting proof  sheets,  for  printers,  at  least,  are  very  apt 
to  make  more  difficult  readings.    But,  of  course,  critical 


editors  do  not  accept  this  rule  without  many  qualifica- 
tions. 


192 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  VIIL 


12  Therefore,  brethren,  we  are  debtors,  not  ^to  the 
flesh,  to  live  after  the  fiesh. 

13  For  if  ye  live  after  the  flesh,  ye  shall  die:  but  if 
ye  through  the  Spirit  do  mortify  the  deeds  of  the  body, 
ye  shall  live. 


12  So  then,  brethren,  we  are  debtors,  not  to  the  flesh, 

13  to  live  after  the  flesh:  tor  if  ye  live  after  the  flesh, 
ye  must  die;  but  if  by  the  Spirit  ye  put  to  death 


for  it  suggests  this  important  and  interesting 
thought — that  it  would  be  derogatory  to  tlie 
dignity  of  the  Divine  Spirit,  that  the  bodies 
which  have  been  honored  as  the  habitations 
of  that  Divine  Guest  should  be  suffered  to 
become  the  irreclaimable  victims  of  corrup- 
tion. ["  kSuch  a  body  God  will  treat  as  he  has 
treated  that  of  his  own  Son."  (Godet.)  ] 
Finally,  this  reading  is  adopted,  in  their 
critical  editions  and  translations,  by  such 
scholars  as  Mill,  Bengel,  Alford,  Meyer, 
Noyes,  and  the  Bible  Union  Revisers.  [The 
reading  of  our  Common  and  of  the  Revised 
Version  is  supported  by  some  of  the  oldest 
Uncial  manuscripts  X  A  C,  and  is  favored  by 
Lachmann,  Tischendorf  (8),  Westcott  and 
Hort,  De  Wette.  This  reading  was  opposed 
by  the  Macedonian  heretics,  who  denied  the 
personality  and  divinit3'  of  the  Holy  Spirit.] 
Webster  gives  the  following  paraphrase  of 
ver.  10,  11:  "But  if  Christ  is  in  you,  while 
the  body  is  dead  (inevitably  subject  to  death) 
owing  to  sin,  the  spirit  is  life  (a  living  princi- 
ple of  action)  owing  to  righteousness;  if, 
however,  the  Spirit  of  him  who  raised  up 
Jesus  from  the  dead  dwell  in  you,  he  who 
raised  up  Christ  from  the  dead  shall  also  make 
alive  (shall  renovate)  your  mortal  bodies, 
owing  to  his  Spirit,  which  dwelleth  in  you." 
12.  Therefore  (inference  from  the  preced- 
ing verse)  brethern,  we  are  debtors  (a 
positive  assertion,  defined  afterward  only  on 
its  negative  side)  not  to  the  flesh,  to  live 
after  the  flesh — in  order  that  we  should  live 
after  the  flesh,  i/such  a  relation  existed.  [So 
De  Wette,  Meyer,  Philippi,  and  others.  But 
Winer  (p.  326)  would  treat  this  infinitive 
clause  in  the  genitive  as  he  does  that  in  1 :  *24 
— making  it  depend  on  the  word  'debtors,'  in 
conformity  to  the  regular  phrase,  to  be  a 
debtor  of  any  one  (or  thing)]. i  The  corre- 
sponding positive  side  of  the  assertion,  as 
deduced  from  ver.  11,  would  be,  "  we  are 
debtors  to  the  Spirit,  to  live  after  the  Spirit"; 
and  so,  for  substance,  the  relation  is  com- 
pleted in  the  last  clause  of  ver.  13.     [The  flesh 


has  done  us  no  service  that  we  who  belong  to 
Christ  should  live  for  it,  or  according  to  its 
dictates.  It  is  the  Spirit  of  life  which  is  the 
source  of  our  present  spiritual  life,  without 
whose  influence  also  we  have  no  spiritual 
activity,  peace,  or  joy,  and  it  is  the  ground  of 
our  resurrection  life.  We  should,  therefore, 
live  to  the  Spirit,  and  our  lives  should  be 
controlled  by  the  Spirit.  The  flesh,  says 
Meyer,  "has  not  deserved  well  of  us!"] 
Chrysostom's  comment  on  this  verse  is  as 
follows:  "We  are  debtors  to  the  flesh  in 
many  respects,  but  not  in  this.  We  owe  it 
nottrishment,  care,  rest,  healing  wlien  sick, 
and  ten  thousand  other  services.  In  order, 
therefore,  that  you  may  not  suppose,  when 
he  says,  '  we  are  not  debtors  to  the  flesh,'  that 
he  means  by  this  to  abolish  or  forbid  such 
services,  he  explains  himself,  saying,  'to  live 
after  the  flesh  ' — that  is,  we  must  not  make 
the  flesh  the  controller  of  our  lives." 

13.  For  if  ye  live  after  the  flesh,  ye 
shall  (mW)  die.  If,  to  repeat  Chrysostom's 
phrase,  ye  make  the  flesh  the  controller  of 
your  lives,  ye  will  die — that  will  be  the  suit- 
able and  certain  end  of  your  course.  The 
death  here  referred  to  is  what  Q]]cumenius 
calls  "the  undying  death  in  hell."  This 
sense  is  confirmed  by  the  antithetic  ye  shall 
live  of  the  following  clause.  [The  'shall'  here 
is  a  separate  verb,  denoting  that  which  is 
about  to  be  and  necessarily  will  be.  The 
inevitable  result  of  carnal  living  is  death  in 
its  comprehensive  sense.  We  must  undergo 
physical  death  even  if  we  do  not  live  after 
the  flesh.  Meyer  refers  it  only  to  eternal 
death,  "the  deathless  death  in  Gehenna." 
According  to  Philippi,  "death,  as  the  conse- 
quence of  sin,  denotes  the  undivided  idea  of 
divine  penal  judgment,  consisting  in  every 
kind  of  physical  and  spiritual  misery.  .  .  . 
Here,  above  all,  is  meant  spiritual  iind  present, 
yet  withal  the  bodily  an4  the  future  death." 
We  do  not  see  in  this  declaration  of  the  apos- 
tle, as  Philippi  does,  ^^  a  dictum  probans  for 
the  possibility  of  apostasy,  the  so-called  amis- 


I  But  Biittmann  (p.  267)  says:  "The  infinitive  with  r  it  depends  merely  outwardly  upon  a  substantive  in  the 
Tov  retaius  its  entire  verbal  nature  and  force,  so  that  |  leading  clause."     (F.)] 


Ch 

VIII.] 

ROMANS. 

193 

14  For  as  many  as  are 
are  the  sons  of  God. 

led 

by 

the 

Spirit 

of  God,  they    14  the  'deeds 
1        as  are  led 

of  the  body,  ye 
by  the  Spirit  of 

shall 
GOd, 

live, 
these 

For  as  many 
are  suns  of 

I  Or.  doing: 

sibilitas  gratice."]  But  if  ye  through  the 
Spirit  [not  in  tlie  human  spirit  (Philippi), 
but  by]  the  Holy  Spirit,  do  mortify,  pitt  to 

death  [more  literally,  are  putting  to  death ; 
compare  Col.  3:5;  Gal.  5  :  24],  the  deeds  of 
the  body,  the  practices  of  the  body,  ye  .shall 
live  [in  the  full  and  highest  sense],  not  '3^6 
will  live,'  as  a  natural  consequence,  as  in  the 
former  case,  'ye  will  die,'  but  'ye  shall  live,' 
as  an  assured  gift  from  God,  promised  by  his 
apostle.  This  distinction  between  the  two 
futures  is  warranted  by  the  difference  of  form 
in  the  original.' 

"A  third  reason  why  tlie  justified  will  cer- 
tainly walk  in  newness  of  life  is  now  added: 

(c)  Tliey  are  children  of  God,  not  only  by 
a  formal  adoption  on  his  part,  but  also  by  a 
filial  spirit  on  tlieirs.     (ver.  u-n.) 

14.  For  introduces  the  ground  of  the  assur- 
ance contained  in  'ye  shall  live.'  For  a  test, 
by  which  we  may  know  whether  or  not  we 
are  led  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  see  Gal.  5: 
22,  23.  [To  be  'led  by  the  Spirit  of  God,' 
though  in  the  passive  voice,  "  is  not  to  be 
understood  of  the  influence  of  a  foreign  power, 
giving  as  it  were  its  impulse  from  without,  but 
it  is  to  be  considered  as  tlie  element  of  life,  as 
deciding  the  tone  of  character  and  being,  so 
that  the  Spirit  of  God  generates  also,  where 
he  works,  a  higher  heavenly  consciousness,  a 
man  of  God,  a  son  of  God."  (Olshausen.) 
In  view  of  Scripture  representation,  here  and 
elsewhere,  no  one  of  us  can  think  too  highly 
of  our  dependence  on  the  Holy  Spirit  for  our 
present  and  eternal  salvation.  And  how 
blessed  are  they  who  are  led  not  by  worldly 
principle,  not  by  personal  ambition,  not  by 
carnal  desire,  not  by  self-will,  or  by  what  is 
self-pleasing  even,  but  by  the  unerring  Spirit. 


It  may  be  noted  that  in  Gal.  5:  18  we  have 
this  same  construction,  to  be  led  b^'  the  Sjiirit, 
yet  '  Spirit '  (iri-tOfia)  there  is  wholly  undefined 
and  is  even  destitute  of  the  article.  Both 
there  and  here  the  Spirit  is  in  the  dative  case 
of  agency  after  a  passive  verb.]  They  are 
the  sons  of  God — these,  and  only  these. 
The  expression  '  sons  of  God'  includes  these 
three  ideas:  1.  Likeness  to  God.  2.  Objects 
of  God's  fatherly  love.  3.  Heirs  of  God's 
inheritance.  The  expressions  'sons  of  God' 
and  "children  of  God,"  though  so  nearly 
related  as  to  be  in  some  connections  inter- 
changeable (Rom.  8:  u,  16, 19, 21),  are  not  to  be  re- 
garded as  identical.  According  to  Olshausen, 
the  word  son  (ui6s)  expresses  more  definitely 
than  the  word  cldld  "  the  developed  conscious- 
ness" of  adoption.  Alford  says  that  the  word 
son  "implies  a  more  mature  and  conscious 
member  of  God's  family."  It  may  be  added, 
that  while  the  word  children  empliasizes  the 
natural  and  legal  relations  of  or ii^/n  and  heir- 
ship, the  word  sons  emphasizes  the  moral  and 
spiritual  relations  of  likeness  and  reciprocal 
affection.  [The  word  for  child  (refcvov),  in 
some  instances,  seems  to  be  used  as  a  term  of 
special  endearment.  Paul  speaks  of  children 
of  God  in  ver.  16,  21 ;  9:  8;  Phil.  2:  15. 
Jolin  uses  this  expression  invariably,  wiiile 
the  Synoptic  Gospels  have  only  "Son  of  God." 
Christ  is alwaj-s called  "Son,"  never,  "child" 
of  God.]  But  however  the  precise  difference 
may  be  defined,  the  words  should  be  distin- 
guished in  tra?islation.  This  is  not  uniformly 
done  in  our  common  English  Version.  The 
word  which  properly  means  sons  is  translated 
children  in  at  least  six  instances  (Matt.  5:  9, 45; 

Luke  20:  36,  twice;  Rom.  9:  26;  Gal.  3;  iS)  ;   while  the  WOrd 

which  properly  means  children  is  translated 


1  The  "  practices  "  of  the  body  arf-  here,  as  in  Col.  3  :  9, 
regarded  as  evil.  Indeed,  the  n-pafei?  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, like  our  practices,  generally  have  an  evil  signili- 
cation,  a  striking  comment  on  our  woutedness  to  do 
evil.  This  word  in  the  i)lnral  is  used  by  Paul  only  in 
these  two  places.  Some  M."<S.,  D  E  F  G,  have  flesh  here 
instead  of  body,  which  would  seem  to  be  a  correction, 
as  sin  is  not  so  often  predicated  of  the  body  as  of  the 
flesh.  The  flesh,  however,  in  its  widest  signification, 
makes  use  of  the  body  as  the  instrument  of  sin,  and  so 


it  becomes  a  body  of  sin  and  death.  "The  body,  as  the 
external  basis  of  human  nature  which  has  become  sin- 
ful, the  organized  crapf,  is  consequently  subject  to  death 
as  the  penalty  of  sin,  and  draws  down  the  soul  with  it 
into  the  same  doom  unless  the  two  be  separated  by  the 
renewal  of  the  spirit,  the  divine  principle  of  the  soul, 
in  which  case  the  body  itself  shall  be  finally  exempted 
from  the  penalty  and  made  a  spiritual  body."  (Creiuer.) 
-(F.) 


N 


194 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  VIII. 


15  For  ye  hare  not  received  the  spirit  of  bondage 
again  to  (ear  ;  but  ye  have  received  the  8pirit  ol  adop- 
tion, whereby  we  cry,  Abba,  Father. 


15  Gf  d.    For  ye  received  not  the  spirit  of  bondage 
again  unto  lear;  but  ye  received  the  spirit  of  adop- 

16  tiun,  whereby   we  cry,  Abba,  Father.    The  Spirit 


sons  a  score  of  times  or  more,^  and  in   one 
place  is  translated  daughters,     (i  Peter 3:  6.) 

15.  An  appeal  to  their  conscious  experience. 
For  ye  have  not  received — that  is,  when  ye 
became  Christians — the  spirit  of  bondage, 
[a  slavish  spirit.  Compare  Gal.  G:  1;  1  Cor. 
4:  21,  "a  spirit  of  love  and  meekness" — that 
is,  a  spirit  whose  characteristic  was  love  and 
meekness.  In  opposition  to  Meyer  and  Godet, 
most  expositors  take  this  spirit  of  bondage  in 
a  wholly  subjective  sense.  EUicott  gives  this 
rule:  "Where  the  Spirit  is  nientiuned  in 
connection  with  giving,  it  is  better  to  refer  it 
directly  to  the  personal  Holy  Spirit.  .  .  AVhere, 
however,  as  in  1  Cor.  4:  21;  Gal.  6:  1,  the 
connection  is  different,  the  spirit  may  be  re- 
ferred immediately  to  the  human  sjiirit,  though 
even  then  ultimately  to  the  Holy  Spirit  as  the 
inworking  power."  Meyer,  on  the  other 
hand,  says:  "T'.iis  mysticism  is  not  in  har- 
mony with  the  New  Testament,  which  always 
distinguishes  clearly  and  specifically  between 
the  Holy  Spirit  and  the  human  spirit  as  in 
ver.  16."]  Me3'er  thus  renders  this  verse: 
"  For  ye  received  not  (when  the  Holy  Spirit 
was  communicated  to  you)  a  spirit  such  as  is 
the  regulating  power  in  the  state  of  slavery 
.  .  .  but  a  spirit  which  in  the  state  of  adoption 
is  the  ruling  principle."  The  word  'again,' 
does  not  imply  that  they  had  ever  before 
'  received  '  a  spirit  of  bondage,  but  only  that 
they  had  formerly  been  in  bondage:  the  word 
'again'  is  connected  with  'bondage'  only,  not 
with  'received';  to  fear — in  order  that  ye 
should  be  afraid.  These  last  two  words,  '  to 
fear,'  are  not  to  be  intimately  connected  with 
'bondage,'  as  if  'fear'  were  the  hard  master 
that  held  them  in  bondage  ;  but  fear  is  repre- 
sented as  the  result  of  their  bondage.  [Meyer, 
and  so  De  Wette,  Philippi,  and  Godet,  con- 
nects 'again'  with  'fear,'  thus:  "in  order 
that  ye  should  once  more  (as  under  the  law 
working  wrath)  be  afraid."  "The  spirit  of 
bondage  (leading)  back  into  fear."  ("Five 
Clergymen".)]  But  ye  have  received  the 
Spirit  of  adoption — the  spirit  that  charac- 
terizes dutiful  children,  a  spirit  of  filial  con- 


fidence, in  contrast  with  the  former  spirit  of 
bondage.     (Gai.  4:4-6.)    Whereby  we  cry.    [In 

which,  or  whom  (compare  Eph.  6:  18),  we 
cry  aloud  with  boldne.ss  and  confidence.  Paul 
wishes  to  join  himself  with  this  cry.  Accord- 
ing to  Gal.  4:  6,  it  is  the  Spirit  of  Christ  in 
our  hearts  which  cries  'Abba,  Father,'  and  so  . 
we  may  from  this  point  of  view  regard  the 
spirit  of  adoption  as  something  objective  and 
as  correspondent  to  this  Spirit  of  Christ. 
Godet  says:  "  It  is  impossible  not  to  see  in  the 
Spirit  of  adoption  the  Spirit  of  God  himself.'' 
Many  commentators  take  the  Spirit  (n-veCiua) 
of  tliis  verse  as  referring  to  God's  Spirit,  who 
works  not  bondage  but  adoption — thus  pu.t- 
ting  these  two  nouns  in  the  genitive  of  the 
effect.']  Abba,  Father.  'Abba'  [from  which 
our  abbot  is  derived]  is  the  later  Hebrew  word 
for  'Father.'  The  word  is  used  only  three 
times  in  the  New  Testament,  twice  by  Paul, 
here,  and  in  Gal.  4:  6,  and  once  by  our  Lord, 
as  recorded  by  Mark  14:  36.  There  is  a 
peculiar  significance  in  thus  uniting  the  Old 
Testament  name  appropriated  to  express  the 
divine  Fatherhood  of  God  toward  his  people 

(Isa.63:  16;  J.T.3:19;31:  9;HoseaU:  1),   with    the  NcW 

Testament  name,  in  which,  through  the  adop- 
tion in  Christ,  the  relationshipis  fully  realized, 
(johni:  12.)  [The  nominative  is  often  used  by 
the  Greeks  for  the  vocative  in  address,  but  the 
use  of  the  article  with  such  nominative  is 
rather  a  peculiarity  of  the  New  Testament. 
The  repetition  of  the  words  may  be  regarded 
as  the  outburst  of  that  filial  affection  which 
one  who  was  by  nature  a  child  of  wrath  may 
naturally  feel  toward  the  great  Creator  who 
has  graciously  adopted  him  as  his  child.  The 
word  '  adoption  '  in  the  New  Testament  (ver.  is, 

23;  9:  4;  Gal.4:  5;  Eph.l:  5)    dcnotCS    the    receiving 

into  the  relationship  of  children,  and  never 
the  simple  relation  of  sonship.  Prof.  Cremer, 
however,  thinks  the  idea  of  "the  relation- 
ship of  children,  based  upon  adoption,  ...  is 
perhaps  to  be  admitted"  here.  There  is  at 
least  this  difference  between  adoption  and  son- 
ship,  the  former  implies  the  latter,  but  the 
latter  does  not  necessarily  imply  the  former. 


1  Matt.  9:  2;  21:  2S,  livice;  Mark  2:  5;  13:  12  (trans- 
lated childrenin  same  verse);  Luke  2:  48;  15:  31;  16: 
25;  John  1:  12;  1  Cor.  4:  14,  17;  Phil.  2:  15,22;  1  Tim. 


1 :  2,  18 ;  2  Tim.  1 :  2 ;  2 :  1 ;  Titus  1:4;  Philem.  10 ;  1 
John  3:  1,  2  =  21  times. 


Ch.  VIII.] 


ROMANS. 


195 


16  The  Spirit  itself  beareth  witness  with  our  spirit, 
that  we  are  the  cbildreu  ol'  God. 


himself  beareth  witness  with  our  spirit,  that  we  are 


This  'adoption'  supposes  that  by  nature  we 
are  not  Gods  own  children  and  we  cannot  be 
regarded  as  true  sons,  nor  can  we  truly  say 
'Our  Father,'  or  'Abba,  Fatlier,'  until  by 
adoption  God  shall  look  upon  us  as  being  in 
Christ,  his  own  well-beloved  Son.] 

16.  [The  absence  of  any  connecting  particle 
serves  to  indicate  the  comnienceuient  of  a 
new  subject.  (Buttmann,  403;  see  9:1;  10: 
1;  18:1.)]  The  Spirit  itself— that  is,  the 
Holy  Spirit.  [Some  have  rendered  this  the 
snine  Spirit,  but  tiiis  would  require  a  different 
form  in  the  original.  The  word  for  Spirit 
being  neuter,  tlie  pronoun  is  likewise  neuter, 
while  the  Canterbury  Kevision  renders  it  as 
masculine,  and  our  American  Kevised  Ver- 
sion, inconsistently,  both  masculine  and  neu- 
ter. See  ver.  16,  20.  We  cannot  properly 
attribute  sex  to  the  Deity,  but  we  naturally 
prefer  when  speaking  of  God,  who  yet  is 
Spirit,  a  masculine  pronoun  as  more  clearly 
indicative  of  personality.  The  Bible  Union 
Version  renders  literally — the  Spirit  itself. 
The  New  Testament  uses  both  it  and  he  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  the  latter,  we  think,  only 
when  a  masculine  noun  referring  to  the  Spirit 
immediately  precedes  or  follows.]  Beareth 
Avitiiess  Avith  our  spirit  (compare  Rom.  5: 
5;  2  Cor.  1:22;  5:5;  Eph.  1 :  13,  14;  4:30; 
1  John  3  :  '24;  4  :  13),  that  we  are  the  chil- 
dren of  God.i  The  Spirit  itself  co-witnesseth 
with  our  spirit  that  we  are  children  of  God 
would  be  a  very  literal  translation  of  this 
verse.  ["The  word  children  emphasizes  the 
heartiness  of  the  filial  feeling."  (Lange. ) 
Meyer  says:  "Paul  distingui?hes  from  the 
subjective  self-consciousness,  /  am  the  child 
of  God,  the  therewitli  accordant  testimony  of 
tiie  objective  Holy  Spirit,  thoti  art  the  child 
of  God!  The  latter  is  the  yea  to  the  former, 
and  thus  it  comes  that  we  cry  the  Abba  in 
the  Spirit.  Our  older  theologians  (see  espe- 
cially Calovius)  have  rightly  used  our  passage 
as  a  proof  of  the  assurance  of  grace.  .  .  . 
At  the  same  time,  it  is  also  a  clear  proof 
against  all  pantheistic  confusion  of  the  divine 
and  human  spirit  and  consciousness,  and  no 
less  against  the  assertion  that  Paul  ascribes  to 


man,  not  a  human  spirit,  but  only  the  divine 
Spirit  become  subjective."  De  Wette  (and 
Alford,  who  oftentimes  closely  follows  De 
Wctte),  disregarding  the  preposition  in  com- 
position, renders  the  verb,  "bears  witness  to 
our  spirit.''  The  Spirit  of  God  dwelling  in 
the  hearts  of  his  adopted  sons  may  very  prop- 
erly be  said  to  co-witness  with  their  spirits 
that  they  are  God's  children.  On  the  wit- 
nessing and  scaling  work  of  the  Spirit,  see  2 
Cor.  1: '22;  Eph.  1:13;  4:30;  1  John  3: '24; 
4:13;  5:7-11.]  This  co-witness  of  the  Spirit 
of  God  witii  our  spirit,  whereby  we  are  as- 
sured that  we  are  children  of  God,  is  a  very 
imjjortant  and  blessed  reality.  At  the  same 
time,  it  must  be  confessed  that  unless  care  is 
used  to  surround  it  with  scriptural  safeguards 
of  interpretation,  it  is  very  liable  to  be  abused, 
to  the  encouragement  of  pretensions  that  are 
presumptuous  and  self-deceptive.  The  Spirit 
of  God  in  the  inspired  word  plainly  witnesses 
or  testifies  what  are  the  characteristic  affec- 
tions, dispositions,  and  habits  of  the  children 
of  God.  See  Gal.  5  :  22,  23,  and  other  kindred 
passages.  Our  human  spirit  witnesses  or  testi- 
fies in  our  consciousness,  through  faithful 
self-examination,  what  our  own  affections, 
dispositions,  and  habits  are.  "When  the  testi- 
monies or  witnesses  of  these  two  spirits,  the 
divine  and  the  human,  are  placed  alongside 
of  each  other,  there  will  be  manifest  agree- 
ment or  manifest  disagreement.  If  the  for- 
mer, it  may  truly  be  said  that  the  Spirit 
of  God  co-witnesseth  with  our  spirit  that  we 
are  children  of  God.  The  joint  witness  of 
these  two  is  a  rational,  and  no  less  an  evan- 
gelical, ground  of  Christian  assurance.  I  do 
not  venture  to  say  that  this  is  the  whole  ac- 
count of  the  matter,  but  I  think  it  is  an  intel- 
ligible account,  and,  as  far  as  it  goes,  a  true 
and  safe  account  of  a  matter,  in  regard  to 
which  misunderstanding  is  very  common,  and 
sometimes  very  mischievous.  [To  avoid  self- 
deception,  and  to  be  saved  from  fanaticism, 
we  should  always  test  the  supposed  witnessing 
of  the  Spirit  in  our  hearts  by  its  witnessing 
"in  the  inspired  word."] 
17.  Heirship  [already  hinted  at  in  4 :  13, 14] 


1  Nouns  in  Greek  following  the  predicate  verb,  to  be,  I  meaning  children  (rcitva)  does  not  require  the  article 
are  frequently  without  the  article ;  but  here  the  word  '  either  in  Greek  or  English.— (F.) 


196 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  VIII. 


17  And  if  children,  then  heirs;  heirs  of  God,  and 
joint  heirs  with  Christ;  if  so  be  that  we  suffer  with 
him,  tliat  we  may  be  also  glorified  together. 

18  For  I  reckon  that  the  suflerings  of  this  present 
time  are  not  worthy  to  be  compared  with  the  glory 
which  shall  be  revealed  in  us. 


17  children  of  God:  and  if  children,  then  heirs;  heirs 
of  God,  and  joint-heirs  with  Christ;  if  so  be  that 
we  sutler  with  liim,  that  we  may  be  also  glorified 
with  him. 

IS  For  I  reckon  that  the  sufferings  of  this  present 
time  are  not  worthy  to  be  compared  with  the  glory 


follows  necessarily  from  childship.  And  if 
[we   are]   children,   [we   are]    tiien   heirs. 

'Children'  is  naturally  said  here  rather  than 
sons,  because  the  word  is  taken  up  from  the 
preceding  verse.  Perhaps,  also,  this  word  may 
be  preferred  in  both  these  verses  as  being  more 
comprehensive.,  including  both  sexes  equally. 
Besides,  it  is  the  more  appropriate  word  in 
this  connection,  as  being  more  distinctly  the 
ground  of  heirship,  which  is  descent,  not  moral 
likeness  or  filial  feeling.  It  ought  to  be  noted, 
however,  that  the  word  soyi  is  used  in  a  similar 
connection,  in  Gal.  4  :  7.  Heirs  of  Goi«. 
Compare  1  Cor.  3 :  21-23.  Truth,  holiness,  and 
bliss  are  infinite  in  God,  and  the  same  blessed 
trio,  though  finite,  are  ultimately  full  in  his 
children.  How  much  of  outward  dignity  may 
be  included  in  this  heirship,  who  can  tell? 
especially  when  it  is  added,  and  joint  heirs 
with  [literally,  of]  Christ.  Compare  John 
17:22;  Col.  3:4;  Kev.  3  :  21.  [Some  suppose 
that  the  apostle  in  this  representation  has  in 
his  mind  the  Koman  law  of  inheritance,  which 
differed  from  the  Jewish.  According  to  the 
latter,  the  eldest  son  received  a  double  share, 
while  adopted  children^  were  excluded  from 
heirship,  and  even  one's  own  daughters,  unless 
there  were  no  sons,  the  daughters  receiving 
only  a  marriage  portion.  Under  the  Koman 
law,  sons  and  daughters  and  adopted  children 
shared  alike.  We,  through  the  grace  of  God 
and  by  virtue  of  our  adoption,  share  the  same 
as  our  "elder  brother"  who  is  "heir  of  all 
things"  (Heb.  1:2),  while  in  ourselves  we  de- 
serve only  wrath.  Children  of  human  parent- 
age are  not  always  heirs  in  this  world,  nor  do 
they  always  inherit  great  possessions.  But 
the  case  is  different  with  the  children  of  God. 
The  idea  of  being  a  son  and  heir  of  God  and 
joint  heir  with  Christ  beggars  all  description, 
and  we  may  well  say, "Who  can  tell?"  We 
often  speak  or  read  of  wealthy  persons  as 
dying  rich.  But  he  alone  can  be  said  to  die 
rich  who,  though  poor  in  this  world's  goods, 
is  yet  rich  in  faith  and  heir  of  God's  ever- 
lasting kingdom.]     The  sufferings  which  be- 


lievers undergo  in  this  life  are  not  inconsistent 
with  their  being  fully  justified  and  accepted 
of  God.  (17-30.)  For— (a)  They  suffer  with 
Christ  that  they  may  be  glorified  with  him. 
(Ver.  17,  last  two  clauses.)  If  so  be  that  we 
suffer  AVith  him,  that  we  may  be  also 
glorified  together.  (I'hii.  3:io,  u:  .?Tim.  2:ii,  12.) 
[The  particle — usually  meaning  that,  or,  in 
order  that  {'iva) — here  expresses  necessary  re- 
sult. (Winer.)  It  is  only  through  a  fellow- 
ship or  participation  in  Christ's  sufferings  that 
we  can  have  participancy  in  his  resurrection 
and  glory.  We  desire  the  glory,  but  natur- 
allj-  dread  the  sufferings.  "  If."  saj's  Philippi, 
"  God  has  promised  to  the  doing  and  suffering 
of  his  children, — not,  indeed,  heaven  itself, 
but  a  special  reward  in  heaven, — this  is  not 
a  reward  duly  earned  and  merited  from  a 
righteous  Judge,  but  unmerited  reward  from 
a  gracious  Father's  goodness."]  {b)  There  is 
an  immeasurable  disproportion  between  the 
present  suffering  and  the  future  glory. 

18.  For  I  reckon.  I  myself  have  em- 
braced this  course,  being  convinced  that,  etc. 
[This  reckoning  "really  contains  both  I  know 
and  am  persuaded."  (Meyer.)  "The  word 
implies  a  careful  estimate,  no  hasty,  super- 
ficial reckoning."  (Boise.)  "I  have  added 
u.p  the  items  of  suffering  on  the  one  side  of 
the  account  and  the  grace  and  glory  on  the 
other,  and,  having  made  the  calculation,  I 
now  strike  the  balance  and  declare  the  result. 
On  St.  Paul's  peculiar  qualification  for  making 
this  estim:ite  [as  to  the  future  glory],  see  on 
2  Cor.  12:4."  (Wordsworth.)  On  the  apos- 
tle's acquaintance,  previous  to  the  writing  of 
this  letter,  with  the  sufferings  of  this  present 
time,  see  2  Cor.  11  :  23-33.  Yet  he  deems  these 
sufferings,  when  contrasted  with  an  eternal 
weight  of  glory,  to  be  but  a  light  and  mo- 
mentary affliction.  (2  cor.  i:  17.)]  That  the 
sufferings  of  this  present  time  [point  of 
time]  are  not  worthy  to  be  compared 
with  the  glory  Avhich  shall  be  revealed 
in  us  [which  shall  come  up(m  us  (ds  ^Mas)  from 
without.     (Meyer.)     "The  glor^- not  merely 


lit  is  doubtful,  however,  whether  the  Jews  were  1  writings  (8 :  15;  9:4;  Gal.  4:5;  Eph.  1 :  5),  there  is  no 
acquainted  with  any  proper  adoption.    Save  in  Paul's  \  i;to9e<7ia,  adoption,  in  all  the  Holy  Scriptures.— (F.) 


Ch.  VIIL] 


ROMANS. 


197 


19  For  the  earnest  expectation  of  the  creature  wait- 
eth  for  the  wanilestatioii  of  the  sous  ot  God. 


19  which  shall  he  revealed  to  us-ward.     For  the  earnest 
exitectalion  of  the  creation  waileth  for  the  revealing 


appearing  to  us,  passing  before  our  eyes,  but 
entering  into  ws,  so  tliat  \vc  share  it,  are  trans- 
formed into  the  same  glorj-."  (Boise.)  Prof. 
Boise,  we  may  add,  generally  seeks  to  make 
this  preposition  express  some  degree  of  within- 
ness].  This  'glory'  is  tlie  future  state  of  ac- 
knowledged perfection  which  God  designs  for 
men,  as  in  2  :  7  [compare  1  Peter  5  :  4].  'Shall 
be  revealed'  [not  immediately,  but  in  the 
future]  in  contrast  with  this  present  time. 
[This  contrast  of  future  glory  with  present 
suftorings  is  strongly  expressed  by  the  em- 
phatic position  of  the  word  translated  'which 
shall  be  revealed'  at  the  beginning  of  the 
clause.]  See  the  same  thought,  expressed 
with  even  greater  emphasis,  in  2  Cor.  4:17. 
The  like  thought  is  beautifully  expanded  by 
Bernard,  as  quoted  by  Tholuck, "  Commentary 
on  Komans,"  Vol.  II.,  p.  85,  Clark's  English 
edition  :  "Non  sunt  condignje  passiones  hujus 
temporis  ad  praBteritam  culpam,  quffi  remitti- 
tur, ad  praesentein  consolationis  gratiam,  quae 
immittitur,  ad  futuram  gloriam  quoe  promit- 
titur."  "Tlie  sufferings  of  the  present  time 
are  not  wortliy  to  be  compared  with  the  past 
guilt  which  is  remitted,  with  the  present  grace 
of  consolation  which  is  zmmitted,  witli  the 
future  glory  which  is  ^^romitted."  Let  the 
barbarous  litoralness  of  the  English  be  par- 
doned. It  is  necessary,  in  order  to  show  the 
peculiarit3'  of  the  Latin. 

The  greatness  of  that  future  glory  is  seen, 
(n)  in  the  longing  desire  for  its  coming  which 
pervades  all  nature  (ver.  19-22)  ;  (d)  in  the  simi- 
lar desire  of  believers,  notwithstanding  the 
bappiness  which  they  enjoy  in  the  present 
foretastes  of  that  glory,     (ver.  23-25.) 

19.  For  introduces  the  proof  of  the  tran- 
scendent nature  of  this  glorj',  [or  as  De  Wette 
and  Meyer  tiiink,  of  the  ^'certainty  of  that 
future  manifestation."  The  present  unsatisfied 
longing  of  tlie  whole  creation  supposes  a  better 
state  in  which  this  longing  will  be  satisfied.] 
The  earnest  expectation  —  the  word  so 
translated  is  a  very  expressive  one,  used  only 
here  and  in  Phil.  1 :  20.  It  is  borrowed  from 
that  upward  and  forward  movement  of  the 


head  which  is  the  natural  attitude  of  eager 
expectancy.  [Godet  defines  it  as  "a  waiting 
with  the  head  raised  and  the  eye  fixed  on 
that  point  of  the  horizon  from  which  the  ex- 
pected object  is  to  come."  See  also  Ellicott 
on  Phil.  1  :  20.  According  to  De  "VV'ette  and 
Meyer,  it  is  a  waiting  expectation  rather  than 
an  anxious  one.]  Of  the  creature — or,  bet- 
ter, as  translated  in  ver.  22,  of  the  creation. 
This  word  is  very  variously  explained.  We 
simply  remark  here,  that  we  understand  by 
it  all  animate  and  inanimate  nature,  as  dis- 
tinguished from  mankind,  referring  to  Ap- 
pendix E,  for  the  vindication  of  this  sense  of 
the  word.  [This  interpretation  is  adopted  by 
most  commentators,'  and  yet  we  feel  a  diflS- 
culty  in  thus  excluding  mankind  from  this 
groaning  creation.  We  know  that  the  ground 
was  cursed  for  man's  sake,  and  though  we 
call  this  earth  beautiful  and  fair,  it  is  3'et  sin- 
cursed. 

Some  flowrets  of  Eden  (we)  still  inherit, 
But  the  trail  of  the  serpent  is  over  them  all. 

We  may  suppose  that  this  world  was  made  a 
world  of  death,  and  that  animals  from  tlie 
very  first — ages  though  it  be  before  man  was 
created — were  endowed  with  decaj'ing  mortal 
bodies,  on  account  of  sinning  and  dying  man. 
It  may  be  deemed  fitting  that  a  world  in- 
habited by  sinful  mortals  should  partake  of 
unrest,  decay,  dissolution.  We  may  deem 
that  earthquakes,  tornadoes,  thunder-tem- 
pests, and  other  like  fearful  and  destructive 
natural  phenomena  belong  properly  to  a 
world  or  world-system  of  disharmony  and 
sin.  We  are  told  indeed  that  lightning,  for 
example,  purifies  the  air  and  is  therefore  a 
blessing.  Yes;  but  we  are  glad  to  think  that 
the  air  of  heaven  will  need  no  purifying. 
We  also  may  hold  it  fitting  that  this  material 
creation,  this  earth,  steeped  as  it  has  been 
with  man's  pollution,  tears,  and  blood,  should 
be  burned  up,  renovated,  and  made  a  "new 
earth."  But  how  can  man  be  excluded  from 
the  "whole  creation"?  As  Forbes  says: 
"Omit  man  —  the   animating  centre  of  the 


>  Substantially  hy  De  Wette,  Meyer,  Philippi,  Godet,  I  animals;  Augustine  and  Turretine  of  men  not  yet  be- 
Alford,  Ilodge,  Boise,  and  others.  Some,  as  Dr.  Ripley,  lievers,  while  some,  as  Chrysostom,  Calvin,  and  Fritz- 
think  especially  of  sentient   irrational   creation,  or    sche,  think  only  of  inanimate  creation.— (F.) 


198 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  VIII. 


whole — and  with  what  propriety  could  we 
speak  of  the  creation  or  creature  being  made 
subject  willingly  or  '  not  ivillingly  to  vanity '  ? 
Ao^irt^' for  deliverance?  waiting  'for  the  mani- 
festation of  the  sons  of  God  ? '  "  That  we  now 
sin  willingly  and  v/illfuUy  is  no  proof  that  the 
subjection  of  our  race  to  vanity,  decay,  and 
death  was  of  our  choice.  And  cannot  an 
'  earnest  expectation '  be  better  predicated 
even  of  wicked  men,  in  their  present  state  of 
disquietude  and  wretchedness,  groaning  under 
the  burden  of  sin  and  longing  in  their  inmost 
souls  for  something  better,'  than  of  the  brute 
and  material  creation?  Besides,  does  not  the 
apostle's  statement  suppose  that  the  creation 
eventually  is  to  share,  not  only  in  some  general 
deliverance  at  the  revelation  of  the  sons  of 
God,  but  is  to  share  the  same  deliverance 
which  these  experience,  and  is  to  be  intro- 
duced even  "into  the  liberty  of  the  glory  of 
the  children  of  God"?  The  apostle  else- 
where says  that  the  fullness  of  the  Gentiles 
should  be  brought  in  and  all  Israel  should  be 
saved,  and  hence  he  can  assert,  generally, 
that  the  creation  (of  mankind)  shall  be  freed 
from  the  bondage  of  corruption,  and  shall 
enjoy  the  liberty  of  the  glory  of  God's  chil- 
dren. Dr.  Gilford,  who  defines  the  word 
translated  'creature'  as  "the  irrational  crea- 
tion, animate  and  inanimate,"  j^et  says  that 
"Mankind,  therefore,  so  f:\ras  they  fulfill  their 
proper  destiny,  in  accordance  with  the  great 
promise,  'in  thy  seed  shall  all  the  nations  of 
the  earth  be  blessed,'  are  all  included  among 
'the  sons  of  God.'  "  And  the  phrase  "  owr- 
selves  also,  which  have  the  first  fruits  of  the 
Spirit"  (ver. 23),  naturally  implies  a  contrast, 
not  so  much  with  material  creation,  stone  and 
earth,  or  with  brute  creation,  as  with  human 
kind  who  even  in  their  rebellion  against  God 
do  bitterly  experience  the  unrest  and  misery 
of  sin,  as  also  the  vanity  of  all  earthly  things. 
"The  creation  was  made  subject  to  vanity," 
and  the  heart  language  of  every  worldling 
since  the  days  of  fallen  Adam  is  "vanity  of 
vanities!  all  is  vanity."  "The  whole  crea- 
tion" in  Mark  16:  15  (compare  Col.-  1:  23 
and  Ellicott  thereon)  to  whom  the  gospel 
should  be  preached,  is  mankind  in  general, 
and  so  if  the  whole  creation  here  refers  to 


mankind  generally  this  does  not  hinder  the 
distinguishing  a  part  (those  who  have  the 
first  fruits  of  the  Spirit)  from  the  whole. 
"Where  is  the  impropiety,"  asks  Forbes,  "in 
drawing  a  distinction  between  creation  (in- 
cluding all  mankind)  as  a  whole,  and  those 
who,  from  their  privileges  and  hopes,  might 
be  supposed  exempted  from  the  suflTerings  and 
distress  common  to  all  others?  "  Prof  Stuart 
on  ver.  22,  23,  says  :  "  Not  only  have  mankind 
in  all  ages  down  to  the  present  hour  been  in 
a  frail  and  suflTering  state,  but  even  we,"  etc. 
"  The  whole  human  race  has  sighed  and  sor- 
rowed together,  until  the  present  time.  .  .  . 
But  suppose  now  that  the  natural  world  is 
here  represented  as  sighing  and  sorrowing 
.  .  .  because  it  waited  for  its  renovation,  .  .  . 
was  this  a  thing  so  familiar  to  all  that,  the 
apostle  could  appeal  to  it  by  saying:  we 
know"  ?  Prof.  Stuart  thus  refers  "the  crea- 
tion" to  mankind  generally,  as  also  Prof 
Turner,  and  in  this  interpretation  they  essen- 
tially follow  Augustine,  J.  Lightfoot,  Tur- 
retin,  etc.  Some  few  (as  Albert  Barnes)  refer 
it  to  Christians  collectively.  Olshausen,  on 
the  other  hand,  holds  that  the  apostle  extends 
his  look  over  the  ivhole  creation  inclusive  of 
man,  or  at  least  of  mankind  out  of  Christian- 
ity. This  also  seems  to  be  the  view  of  Lange, 
Forbes,  and  SchaflF.  The  latter  says:  "The 
whole  creation  rational  as  well  as  irrational, 
not  yet  redeemed,  but  needing  and  capable  of 
redemption,  here  opposed  to  the  new  creation 
in  Christ  and  in  the  regenerate.  The  children 
of  God  appear,  on  the  one  side,  as  the  first 
fruits  of  the  new  creation,  and  the  remaining 
creatures  on  the  other,  as  consciously  or  un- 
consciously longing  after  the  same  redemp- 
tion and  renewal.  This  explanation  seems  to 
be  the  most  correct  one.  It  most  satisfactorily 
accounts  for  the  expressions :  expectation, 
waiting,  groaning,  not  willingly,  and,  the 
whole  creation."  "While  favorably  inclined 
to  this  view,  we  must  yet  think  that  the  apostle 
has  the  creature  man  chiefly  in  mind,  other- 
wise he  could  not  speak  as  he  has  without 
qualification  of  creation'.s  sharing  in  the  future 
glory  of  God's  children.]  Waiteth  for  the 
manifestation  [in  glor3' — literally,  the apoc- 
alijpse]  oi  the  sons  of  God.     'Awaits  the 


'Even  a  heathen  Cicero  could  exclaim:  "  Oh,  glorious  i  assemblage  of  spirits,  and  quit  this  troubled  and  pol- 
day  !  when  I  shall  depart  to  that  divine  company  and  1  luted  scene."    (De  Senectute,  ch.  xxiii.)--(F.) 


Ch.  VIIL] 


ROMANS. 


199 


20  For  the  creature  was  made  subject  to  vanity,  not 
willingly,  but  by  reasou  of  biiu  who  hath  subjected  the 
same  in  hope ; 


20  of  the  sons  of  God.     For  the  creation  was  subjected 
to  vanity,  not  of  its  own  will,  but  by  reason  of  him 

21  who  subjected  it,  i  iu  hope  that  the  creation  itself 


1  Or,  in  hope ;  because  the  creation,  etc. 


revelation'  (the  same  verb  and  the  same 
noun  are  used  in  1  Cor.  1  :  7  of  the  mani- 
festation, or  revelation— there  translated  com- 
ing—of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Compare  1 
John  3:  2.)  [The  verb>  denotes  the  receiving 
of  something  out  of  the  hands  of  one  who 
extends  it  toward  us  from  afar.  (Godet. ) 
Kespecting  this  manifestation  of  the  sons  of 
God  with  Christ  in  glory,  see  Col.  3:  4.] 

20,  21.  The  ground  of  this  longing.  For 
the  creature  was  made  subject  to  vanity 
—that  is,  to  instability,  liability  to  change  and 
decay.  [Meyer  says  this  'vanity,'  nothing- 
ness, "indicates  here  the  empty— (that  is,  as 
having  lost  its  primitive  purport,  which  it  had 
hy  creation)  quality  of  beuir/,  to  which  'the 
creation '  (all  nature)  was  changed  from  its 
original  perfection.  .  .  .  The  reference  [as 
by  De  Wette]  to  an  original  'vanity'  intro- 
duced even  by  the  act  of  creation  is  histori- 
cally inappropriate  (Oen.  i:  3i),  and  contrary 
to  'not  willingly,'  etc.,  which  supposes  a 
previous  state  7iot  subject  to  vanity."  Accord- 
ing to  Forbes,  the  expression  :  '  made  subject 
to  vanity,'  "  would  seem  specially  to  point  to 
the  doom  pronounced  on  man:  'Dust  thou 
art  and  unto  dust  shalt  thou  return,'  and 
wliich  is  embodied  in  the  very  name  of  its 
first  victim  (Abel  =  vanity)."  Professors 
Stuart  and  Turner  refer  this  vanity  to  the 
frail,  decaying,  dying  state  of  man.  The 
apostle  speaks  of  it  further  on  as  "the  bondage 
of  corruption."  The  noun  occurs  elsewhere 
in  Eph.  4:  17;  2  Peter  2:  18.  Trench  remarks 
that  this  word  is  altogether  strange  to  profane 
(ircek  (though  the  adjective  form  is  used), 
and  that  the  "heathen  world  was  itself  too 
deeply  and  hopelessly' sunken  in  'vanity'  to 
be  fully  alive  to  the  fact  that  it  was  sunken  in 
it  at  all."  If  this  'vanitj''  be  referred  to  the 
irrational  creation,  then  we  say  .with  M.  Reuss, 
"  Everywhere  our  eyes  meet  images  of  death 


and  decay;  the  scourge  of  barrenness,  the 
fury  of  the  elements,  the  destructive  instincts 
of  beasts,  the  very  laws  which  govern  vegeta- 
tion, everything  gives  luiture  a  sombre  hue."] 
Not  willingly— all  tliese  three  expressions, 
'  was  made  subject'  (passive),  'vanity'  (not 
sin),  'not  willingly'  (without  any  fault 
[choice?]  on  its  own  part),  confirm  our  inter- 
pretation of  the  word  '  creation  ' ;  for  they  are 
not  such  expressions  as  would  naturally  be 
predicated  of  a  free,  intelligent,  responsible, 
moral  being,  whose  miser}'  was  the  result  of 
his  own  guilty  choice  of  evil  in  preference  to 
good.  '  Was  made  subject  to  vanity.'  When? 
At  the  fall  of  man.  (Gen.3:  n.is.)  But  by 
reason  of  him — but  on  account  of  him  ;  the 
antithesis  of  'not  willingly '—Avho  hath  sub- 
jected the  same — that  is,  God:  the  subject 
is  assumed  as  well  known;  if  it  were  any 
other  than  God,  some  explanation  would  be 
needed.  [Yet  some,  as  Chrysostom,  Tholuck, 
suppose  Adam  is  here  referred  to,  while  Ham- 
mond suggests  the  name  of  Satan,  tlie  prince 
of  this  world,  and  Godet  hesitates  between 
these  two  interpretations.^]  In— [literally  : 
ypon]  hope — it  was  not  to  a  hopeless,  un- 
limited doom,  that  the  creation  was  made 
subject:  the  explanation  immediately  follows. 
['Was  subjected  to  vanity'  .  .  .  'upon  (or, 
in)  hope.'  "Surely  this  expression  must 
compel  us  to  see  that  man  is  he  whom  the 
apostle  hitherto,  down  to  ver.  22,  has  princi- 
pall3'  in  his  mind.  .  .  .  Man  hi  general,  we 
say  ;  for  what  else  prepared  the  innumerable 
multitudes  of  the  heathen,  converted  by  the 
preaching  of  the  apostles,  to  listen  to  the 
gospel,  but  the  sickening  experience  they  had 
had  of  the  vanity  to  which  they  were  left, 
and  the  bitter  fruits  they  had  reaped  from 
sin?  Shut  out  here,  as  the  prevalent  inter- 
pretation does,  the  Gentiles  and  the  great 
body  of  the  unconverted,'  and  what  a  strange 


1  '.\it€kS«X*''''"i  compounded  of  the  verb  Se'xonoi,  lo  re- 
ceive, and  two  prepositions — on-6  from,  iic,  out  of. 

-  Winer  refers  this  subjection  to  the  "  will  and  com- 
mand of  God" — (5«a  with  the  accusative) — yet  is  of 


sin  was  the  proper  and  direct  cause  of  the  '  vanity.'" 
-(F.) 

s  The  ftroaninp;  of  the    "  unconverted  "  and  their 
siphing,  involuntary  and  unconscious  though  it  be,  for 


opinion  that  Paul  intentionally  avoided  using  Sii  with     something  better,  is  well  expressed  by  the  misanthropic 
the  genitive  (equivalent  to  God  subjected  it),  as"  Adam's  |  Byron  ("  Childe  Harold's  Pilgrimage,"  IV.,  CXXVI.): 


200 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  VIII. 


21  Because  the  creature  itself  also  shall  he  delivered 
from  the  bondage  of  corruption  into  the  glorious  liberty 
of  the  children  of  God. 

2.i  For  we  know  that  the  whole  creation  groaneth 
and  travaileth  in  pain  together  until  now. 


also  shall  be  delivered  from  the  bondage  of  corrup- 
tion into  the  liberty  of  the  glory  of  the  children  of 

22  God.    For  we  know  that  the  whole  creation  groaneth 

23  and  travaileth  in  pain  i  together  until  now.    And 


omission  is  attributed  to  St.  Paul !  .  .  .  The 
natural,  material  world  is  brought  into  marked 
prominence,  but  the  world  of  perishing  7nen 
is  left  out !  "  (Forbes)  ]  Because  [in  the  Ke- 
vised  Version,  that,  expressing  not  the  reason 
of  the  hope  but  its  .substance]  the  creature 
itself  also— this  expression  (especially  the 
■words  itself  ^nd  also)  intimates  a  descending 
from  the  more  to  the  less  noble,  which  accords 
with  what  follows — shall  be  delivered  from 
the  bondage  of  corruption  (and  admitted) 
into  the  glorious  liberty  of  the  children 
of  God.  ["The  freedom  [from  decay  and 
death]  is  described  as  consisting  in,  belonging 
to,  being  one  component  part  of,  the  glorified 
state  of  the  children  of  God."  (Alford.)  So 
corruption  is  in  the  genitive  of  apposition, 
indicating  that  the  bondage  consists  in  cor- 
ruption. It  is  obvious  to  remark  that  general 
expressions  relating  to  the  restoration  or 
future  glorification  of  the  creation  or  of  all 
things  (2Cor.  5:  19;  Erh.i:  10;  Col.  1:  20),  are  Some- 
times to  be  limited,  as  is  evident  from  such 
passages  as  Matt.  17:  11,  "Elijah  indeed 
oorneth,  and  shall  restore  all  things."  Kevised 
Version.]  There  seems  to  be  here  a  pregnant 
intimation,  that  the  inanimate  and  irrational 
creation  is  to  participate,  in  some  unexplained 
way,  and  in  such  degree  as  its  nature  allows, 
in  the  future  glory  of  God's  redeemed  people. 
We  shall  find  this  intimation  confirmed  in 
the  following  verse.  [In  accordance  with  this 
view  is  the  remark  of  Bengel :  "  Misfortunes 
have  accrued  to  the  creature  from  sin  ;  repa- 
ration will  accrue  to  the  creature  from  the 
glory  of  the  sons  of  God."  In  Godet's  view 
the  inanimate  and  irrational  creation  will 
participate  not  in  the  glory,  but  only  in  the 
liberty  of  the  glory  of  God's  children.  But 
as  their  bondage  was  corruption,  so  the  free- 
dom into  which  they  will  be  introduced  will 
consist  in  their  participation  in  the  glory  of 


the  children  of  God.  Whatever  this  creation 
is,  it  will  be  glorified  in  the  same  manner  as 
the  children  of  God  will  be  glorified,  and  this 
supposes  that  the  creation  chiefly  referred  to, 
or  "mankind  in  general,"  will  yet  become 
children  and  heirs  of  God.  Even  Meyer 
concedes  that  the  creation  will  participate  in 
a  glory  like  that  of  God's  children.] 

22.  For  introduces  the  proof  of  what  is 
afiRrmed  in  ver.  21.  'For'  the  groaning  and 
travailing  in  which  all  nature  unites  cannot 
be  without  a  meaning  and  an  aim.  It  pre- 
supposes and  heralds  a  coming  deliverance, 
and  so  Ave  know  that  such  a  deliverance  is 
predestined.  [So  Meyer,  while,  in  De  Wette's 
view,  Paul  would  prove  the  afiBrmation  of  ver. 
19,  20  by  appealing  to  a  generally  conceded 
truth.]  The  Avhole  creation  groaneth 
and  travaileth  in  pain  together.  All  the 
parts  of  this  complex  creation  unite  (this  is 
the  meaning  of  'together')  in  this  sad  utter- 
ance. A  bold  and  impressive  figure  of  speech. 
That  last  verb,  'travaileth,'  suggests,  as  do 
other  prophetic  Scriptures,  the  birth  [with  its 
attendant  suffering]  of  a  new  creation.  See 
Isa.  65:17;  66:22;  Matt.  19:28;  Acts  3  :  21 ; 
2  Peter  3  :  13 ;  Eev.  21:1,5.  Until  now.  This 
expression  strengthens  our  interpretation,  for 
it  would  not  be  appropriate  if  referred  to  the 
sufferings  of  Chiistians;  it  points  too  far  back 
to  a  state  of  things  that  has  lo7ig  existed. 
[The  connection  of  earth's  sorrows  and  of 
earth's  redemption  with  'the  whole  creation,' 
if  taken  in  a  literal  sense,  lies  beyond  our 
present  comprehension.  In  our  finiteness, 
who  can  understand  and  explain  the  universe? 
Compared  with  this  illimitable  universe,  this 
world  is  less  than  a  speck  of  dust,  and  we  that 
creep  upon  earth's  surface  are  as  nothing. 
It  seems  to  us  almost  like  vanity,  and  like 
acting  the  part  of  the  fly  in  the  stage  coach, 
to  suppose  that  our  little  selves  are  of  much 


Our  life  is  a  false  nature — 'tis  not  in 

The  harmony  of  things — this  hard  decree, 

This  uneradicable  taint  of  sin, 

This  boundless  Upas,  this  all-blasting  tree, 

Whose  root  is  earth,  whose  leaves  and  branches  be 


The  skies  which  rain  their  plagues  on  man  like  dew,     . 
Disease,  death,  bondage,  all  the  woes  we  see. 
And  worse,  the  woes  we  see  not,  which  throb  through 
The  immedicable  soul,  with  heart-aches  ever  new. 

-(F.) 


Ch.  VIII.] 


ROMANS. 


201 


23  And  not  only  they,  but  ourselves  also,  which  have 
the  tirstf'ruits  of  "the  Spirit,  even  we  ourselves  groan 
within  o'irselves,  waitiug  for  the  adoption,  to  uit<,  the 
redemption  of  our  body. 


not  only  so,  but  ourselves  also,  who  have  the  first- 
fruils  of  the  Spirit,  even  we  ourselves  groan  within 
ourselves,  waiting  for  our  adoption,  to  u-it,  the  re- 


coiisequence  in  tlie  universe,  or  that  tlie  uni- 
verse is  so  much  iiffected  by  our  misdeeds  and 
sufferings,  and  by  what  our  Suviuur  has  done 
and  will  do  for  us  in  the  matter  of  our  re- 
demption. What  is  man  that  the  infinite 
Creator  and  the  whole  creation  should  be 
mindful  of  him  or  interested  in  him?  Yet 
the  Scriptures  lead  us  to  believe  that  the  in- 
terest of  creation  is  centred  around,  and  that, 
to  some  extent,  its  welfare  is  dependent  upon, 
the  one  great  event  for  the  created  universe; 
namely,  the  redemption  of  this  earth  by  the 
Lord  of  Glory,  together  with  the  eternal  glori- 
fication of  the  redeemed.  See  especially  Col. 
1:20;  Eph.  1  :  lO.i  In  Chalmers'  "Astro- 
nomical Discourses,"  our  readers  will  find 
much  interesting  speculation  on  a  supposed 
connection  of  earth's  redemption  with  the 
interests  of  the  universe.  See  also  Andrew 
Fuller's  "The  Gospel  its  own  Witness,"  Part 
II.,  Chapter  V.] 

23.  And  not  only  they,  but  ourselves 
also,  which  have,  etc.  (literally,  having)  — 
that  is,  not  only  does  the  whole  creation  groan 
and  travail  together.  It  will  be  observed  that 
the  word  '  they  '  is  not  in  the  original.  ["The 
te.\t  here  (ver.  23)  1$  in  inextricable  confusion, 
but  the  sense  very  little  affected."  (Alford.) 
Some  readings  seem  to  make  a  distinction 
between  those  having  the  Spirit  and  'our- 
selves.' According  to  Meyer, "The  participle 
having,  without  the  article,  is  fatal  to  every 
reference  to  subjects  of  two  sorts."]  'But 
ourselves  also,' — that  is.  Christians, — Avhich 
have  the  firstfruits  of  the  Spirit.  'First- 
fruits,'  in  distinction  from  subsequent  gifts  of 
the  Spirit  to  later  Christians,  because  it  was  a 
special  privilege  of  the  earliest  Christians  to 
receive  that  Spirit  first.  But  this  does  not 
imply  anj'thing  in  the  quality  of  the  gift 
superior  to  that  communication  of  the  Spirit 
which    all    Christians    shared    in    common. 


[Some— as  Bengel,  AViner,  Godet— regard  the 
Spirit  as  in  the  genitive  of  apposition  (as  in 
the  phrase:  earnest  of  the  Spirit),  mai<ing  the 
Spirit  equivalent  to  the  first  fruits  of  God's 
gracious  gifts.  Usage,  however,  seems  to  re- 
quire the  genitive  partitive,  "as  is  involved 
in  the  very  meaning  of  first  fruits.  Compare 
16  :  5  ;  1  Cor.  15  :  20;  16  :  15;  James  1  :  18." 
(Mej'er.)  But  we  need  not  suppose,  as  Dr. 
Arnold  and  many  others— Olshausen,  Meyer, 
Giff'ord,  Turner — have  done,  that  the  apostle 
has  reference  here  to  the  reception  of  the 
Spirit  by  the  ^''earliest  Christians,''  but  may 
rather  regard — with  Tlioluck,  Philippi,  and 
others — this  first  fruits  (on-opx^)  of  the  Spirit  as 
the^7-s^/>flr<  of  a  subsequent  '"full  harvest  of 
spiritual  blessings."  The  gift  of  the  Spirit  is 
here  regarded  as  an  earnest  or  pledge  of  the 
fullness  of  the  Spirit's  blessings  which  is  yet 
to  be  imparted.  Compare  Eph.  1:14;  2  Cor. 
1  :  22.]  Groan  within  ourselves.  Not 
groaning  before  men,  but  in  the  recesses  of 
our  own  hearts,  known  only  to  God.  ["The 
reader  will  not  fail  to  recognize  in  this  pas- 
sage the  very  lamentation  that  is  uttered  else- 
where: 'O  wretched  man  that  I  am!  who 
shall  deliver  me  from  the  body  of  this 
death?'"  (Chaltners.)  Compare  the  groan- 
ing utterances  of  2  Cor.  5  :  2,  4,  penned  but  a 
short  time  before  writing  this  Epistle.  In  the 
reflexive  pronoun  rendered  'ourselves,'  the 
third  person  plural  is  used  for  the  first.  This 
interchange  of  the  third  person  for  the  first 
and  second  persons  plural  is  a  somewhat  fre- 
quent usage  in  the  New  Testament,  and  is 
found  in  Greek  authors.  (AViner,  150.)] 
Waiting  for  ["expecting  in  full "( Boise)]  the 
adoption^  [in  its  full  manifestation],  to  wit, 
the  redemption  of  our  body.  The  eman- 
cipation [not  from  our  body,  but]  of  our  body 
from  the  defects  and  disadvantages  of  its 
earthly  condition  ["from  sufferings  and  sins, 


1  Ellicott,  on  Col.  1 :  20,  thus  remarks :  "How  the  rec- 
onciliation of  Christ  affects  the  .spiritual  world,  .  .  . 
we  know  not  and  dare  not  speculate.  This,  however, 
we  may  fearlessly  as.sert, — that  the  eflRcacy  of  the  sacri- 
fice of  the  Eternal  .Son  is  infinite  and  limitless,  that  it 
extends  to  all  thinps  in  earth  and  heaven,  and  that  it 
is  the  blessed  medium  by  which,  between  God  and  his 


creatures,  whether  angelical,  human,  animate,  or  inani- 
mate, peace  is  wrought." — 'F.) 

2D  F  G  omit  the  word  'adoption,'  which,  perhaps, 
was  regarded  as  already  possessed,  and  hence  was  inap- 
propriate here.  The  article  is  probably  omitted  on  ac- 
count of  its  "connection  with  an  opposition"  (Winer), 
or  "on  account  of  its  preceding  its  verb  for  emphasis' 
sake."    (Alford.)— (F.) 


202 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  VIII. 


24  For  we  are  saved  by  hope :  but  hope  that  is  seen  I  24  demption  of  our  body.     For  i  -n  hope  were  we  saved  : 
is  not  hope;  for  what  a  mau  seeth,  why  doth  he  yet  but  hope  that  is  seen  is  not  hope:  2 for  who  3  hopeth 

hope  for?  25  for  that  which  he  seeth?    But  if  we  hope  for  that 


25  But  if  we  hope  for  that  we  see  not,  then  do  we 
with  patience  wait  for  il. 


-■' we  hope  for  that 

which  we  see  not,  then  do  we  with  •'patience  wait 
fur  it. 


1  Or,  by 2  Many  ancieut  uutborities  read /or  what  a  man  seeth,  why  doth  he  yet  hope  fort 3  Snme  aucieat  authoiicies  read 

awaiteth 4  Or,  sted/astness. 


from  Satan  and  from  death"]  at  the  resurrec- 
tion, and  its  transformation  into  the  likeness 
of  Christ's  glorious  body,  will  be  the  crown- 
ing act  of  our  redemption  and  the  crowning 
proof  of  our  adoption,  (i  Cor.  10:26,54.)  ["Be- 
loved, now  are  we  children  of  God  (that  is, 
have  received  the  adoption),  and  it  is  not  yet 
made  manifest  what  we  shall  be.  We  know, 
tliat  if  he  shall  be  manifested  we  shall  be  like 
him"  (1  John  3:2,  Revised  veision),  and  the  bodies 
of  our  humiliation  shall  be  fashioned  anew  so 
as  to  be  conformed  to  the  body  of  his  glory. 
(Phil. 3:21.)  The  Scripturcs  regard  it  as  no  light 
matter  that  our  bodies  have  been  made  instru- 
ments of  sin  and  have  been  subjected  to  dis- 
ease, decay,  death,  and  corruption.  Some  per- 
sons speak  lightly  of  death,  but  the  Scriptures 
never  do  this,  neither  can  we  when  we  feel 
at  all  the  solemnity  of  so  great  and  so  untried 
a  change,  coming  home  to  us  personally  and 
taking  us,  as  it  were,  all  to  pieces;  when, 
moreover,  we  realize  how  deep  and  universal 
is  the  dread  of  death  or  "dread  of  something 
after  death,"  or  when  we  think  of  the  physical 
j)ains  and  mental  agonies,  the  sad  changes 
and  disappointments,  the  tie  sunderings  and 
the  tears,  which  are  the  accompaniments  of 
death.  To  the  true  believer,  death  has,  in- 
deed, lost  its  chiefest  sting,  and  it  will  be  to 
him  a  gain.  Still,  death  is  sent  upon  all  men 
as  a  punishment  for  sin,  and  is  in  itself  a  fear- 
ful and  dreaded  enemy.  And  there  is  enough 
of  the  bitterness  of  death  remaining  even  to 
the  Christian,  for  it  still  to  be  regarded  as 
an  enemy.  And  so,  in  one  sense,  the  poet's 
words  are  true: 

Not  all  the  preaching  since  Adam 
Has  made  Death  other  than  Death. 

How  glorious  will  it  be  when  we  shall  have 
passed  safely  beyond  its  power;  yea,  when 
Death  itself,  the  last  enemy,  shall  be  brought 
to  nought,  and  our  bodies  shall  be  fully  and 
forever  redeemed  from  the  bondage  of  Satan 
and  from  the  effects  of  sin  !] 

24.  For  we  are  saved  by  hope.  'For' 
points  to  the  ground  of  their  awaiting  the 
adoption— namely,  that  its  full  consummation 


is  yet  in  the  future,  and  therefore  an  object  of 
expectation  :  For  in  hope  we  were  made  par- 
takers of  salvation  [and  "by  hope  the  Chris- 
tian can  even  now  regard  himself  as  saved." 
(Weiss.)]  The  verb  is  in  the  past  tense. 
"Hope  is,  in  fact,  faith  in  its  prospective  atti- 
tude." (Tholuck.)  (Heb.ii:i.)  [The  Canter- 
bury Kevision  retains  the  by  of  our  Common 
Version.  "The  dative,  not  of  the  means,  but 
of  the  manner."  (Bengel.)  That  is,  we  were 
saved,  not  by  hope,  but  in  hope.  "In  gen- 
eral," says  Meyer,  "Paul  specifically  distin- 
guishes faith  and  hope,  while  he  alwaj's  bases 
salvation  only  on  faith."]  But  hope  that  is 
seen  [that  is,  whose  object  is  before  our  eyes 
and  within  our  grasp]  is  not  hope.  For 
what  a  man  seeth,  why  doth  he  yet  hope 
for?  The  nature  of  hope  involves  our  pa- 
tiently waiting  for  the  good  hoped  for. 
''^With  vision,  hope  is  needless."  (Bengel.) 
The  little  word  translated  'yet'  (literallj-: 
and,  also,  even),  when  connected — as  here — 
with  an  interrogative,  conveys  a  sense  of  the 
utter  superfluity  of  the  thing.  [The  Revisers' 
text,  it  will  be  seen,  reads  somewhat  differ- 
ently.] 

25.  But  if  we  hope  for  that  we  see  not. 
[The  verb  'see  not,'  as  also  'seeth'  in  the  pre- 
ceding verse,  is  made  emphatic  in  the  original 
by  its  position  at  the  head  of  the  clause.] 
Then  do  we  with  patience  wait  for  it. 
'Patience,'  or  endurance,  is  the  state  in  which 
and  through  which  this  waiting  takes  place. 
[The  verb  'wait'  refers  back  to  the  participle 
'waiting'  in  ver.  23.]  The  preposition  trans- 
lated '  with '  is  more  usually  and  more  exactl3' 
translated  through;  the  conception  seems  to 
be  of  a  local  character,  in  accordance  with 
the  most  literal  primitive  sense  of  the  word 
through,  the  time  of  waiting  being  regarded 
as  an  intervening  space  between  the  first  ex- 
pectation and  the  full  fruition  of  the  object 
hoped  for.  Compare  note  on  2  :  27.  [See  also 
Heb.  12:1:  Let  us  through  patience  run  the 
race  set  before  us.  Winer  makes  these  ex- 
pressions refer  to  "the  state  of  mind  in  which 
one   does   something,"  thus   retaining   some 


Ch.  VIII.] 


ROMANS. 


203 


26  Likewise  the  Spirit  also  helpeth  our  infirinitics: 
for  we  know  uot  what  we  should  pray  for  as  we  ought: 


26      And  iu  like  manner  the  Spirit  also  helpeth  our 
intjriuity :    for   we   know   not   how   to  i)ray   as  we 


idea  of  instrumentality.  The  present  tense 
of  these  verbs  denotes  that  which  is  continued 
or  hiibitual, — we  hope,  or  are  hoping;  we 
wait  for  it,  or  "we  continue  expecting  it  in 
full."     (Boise.)] 

(c)  Suitable  spiritual  supports  are  afforded 
them    while   these   sullerings   continue,     (ver. 

26.  27. ) 

20.  "The  progress  of  thought  i?  simple. 
If  we  hope  for  that  we  see  not,  then  the  matter 
stands  with  us  (1)  on  the  footing  that  we 
with  patience  wait,  but  likewise  (2)  on  the 
footing  that  the  Spirit  helps  us.  The  likewise 
introduces  a  symmetrical  corresjionding  rela- 
tion, which  is  added,  on  the  divine  side,  to  our 
waiting."  (Mej-er. )  ["As  the  apo-^^tle  had 
passed  from  the  groaning  of  universal  nature 
to  that  of  the  children  of  God,  he  now  rises 
from  the  latter  to  that  of  the  Holy  Spi  rit  him- 
self" (Godet.)]  Likewise  the  (Holy)  Spirit 
also  helpeth  our  infirmities  (joins  his  ac- 
tivity with  our  weakness)  in  waiting  for  final 
redemption.  The  absence  of  adequate  power 
in  ourselves  for  this  patient  waiting  is  plainly 
implied.^  Alford:  "The  Spirit  helps  our 
weakne.ss, — helps  us  who  are  weak."  The 
singular,  infirmity,  is  doubtless  the  correct 
rending,  being  supported  by  the  uncials  N  A 
BCD.  For  we  know  not  [literally, /o?-  the 
vihat  we  should  pray  as  it  is  proper,  we  know 
not.  The  neuter  article  at  the  head  of  this 
clause  gives  it  a  "substantival  character,"  and 
renders  it  more  prominent.  (Winer,  109.) 
On  the  use  of  the  interrogative  subjunctive, 
see  Winer,  299.]  'For'  assigns  the  reason 
whj'  the  Spirit  intercedes.  As  we  ou§rht. 
"According  to  the  present  and  ever-varying 
needs"  would  be  a  good  paraphrase  for  the 
brief  but  comprehensive  Greek  phrase.  Illus- 
trations of  the  truth  of  the  proposition  here 
stated  are  abundant.  For  example:  Abra- 
ham interceding  for  Sodom  (oen.  18:23-33) ; 
Moses  for  permission  to  enter  Canaan  (oeut. 


3:23-27)  ;  Paul  fof  the  rcmoval  of  the  thorn  in 
the  flesh  (2  cor.  12 : 8,  9) ;  Augustine's  mother, 
that  her  son  might  not  go  to  Rome  (yet  his 
going  there  led  to  his  going  to  Milan,  where 
he  was  converted).  It  was  a  saying  of  Py- 
thagoras, that  "men  ought  not  to  pray  for 
themselves  on  account  of  their  not  knowing 
what  is  expedient  for  them."  [The  soul  of 
our  Redeemer,  as  we  read  in  John  12 :  27,  was 
once  troubled  or  perplexed  in  regard  to  the 
definite  object  which  should  be  prayed  for. 
Yet  whatever  bis  desired  petition  might  biive 
been,  he  was  always  enabled  to  add :  "Father, 
glorify  thy  name,"  and  "Not  my  will  but 
thine  be  done."  Should  not  every  right 
prayer  be  accompanied  by  these  words? 
Certainly  the  Spirit  'helpeth'  our  infirmit3-, 
and  though  it  is  not  here  supposed  that  he 
gives  us  words  to  speak,  yet  it  is  possible  that 
he  may  at  times  "indite"  our  petitions  and 
give  us  assurance  that  they  will  be  fully  an- 
swered. Yet  I  think  that  these  cases  are  of 
rare  occurrence,  and  that  the  Christian  is 
seldom  assured  by  tiie  Spirit  that  the  bringing 
to  pass  of  his  will  would  be  best  for  him  or 
for  others,  or  would  be  the  most  for  God's 
glory,  and  that  his  prayers  will  thus  be  an- 
swered to  the  letter.  We  know  of  no  test 
that  will  enable  us  uniformly  to  distinguish 
between  the  Spirit's  assurance  and  mere  self- 
assurance.  We  do  know  that  many  most 
devoted  Christians  have  been  deceived  on  this 
point.  They  have  firmly  believed,  they  have 
had  full  assurance,  j-et  God  has  not  answered 
their  praj'ers  in  the  way  and  form  desired. 
How  much  better  to  leave  the  answer  of  our 
petitions  with  God,  who,  knowing  what  is 
best,  will  do  for  us  what  is  best!  Indeed,  it 
would  seem  to  be  supremely  selfish  for  the 
believer  to  desire  that  his  will  should  always 
be  regarded  in  heaven,  or  to  feel  that  his 
prayers  (save  as  he  says,  "Thy  will  be  done") 
must  always  be  answered  to  the  very  letter.]* 


1  "The  verh,"  says  Godet,  "is  one  of  those  admirable 
words  easily  formed  by  the  (ireek  language:  Aafi^o- 
vcdBai.  (middle),  to  take  a  burden  on  oneself;  vvv,  u-ith 
some  one;  avri,  in  his  place.  So:  To  share  a  burden 
with  one  with  the  view  of  easing  him.  Compare  Luke 
10:40.  .  .  .  The  Spirit  supports  us  in  the  hour  when 
we  are  ready  to  faint." — (F.) 

-  Never  were  more  or  (perhaps)  truer  prayers  offered 
up  throughout  Christendom  for  the  life  of  any  man 


than  for  that  of  the  late  President  Garfield.  But  prayer 
did  not  save  him.  And  yet  many  Christians  were  fully 
persuaded  that  in  answer  to  so  much  earnest  praying 
his  life  would  be  spared,  and  some  went  so  far  as  to 
assert  that  his  recovery  might  properly  be  regarded  as 
a  fair  prayer  test  in  contrast  to  that  suggested  by  Prof. 
Tyndall.  But  did  not  such  persons  take  too  much  lor 
granted  ;  namely,  that  his  recovery  from  the  assassin's 
shot  would  be  for  his  own  highest  good,  for  the  greatest 


204 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  VIII. 


but  the  Spirit  itself  maketh  intercessioQ    for  us  with 
groauings  wliich  cannot  be  uttered. 

27  And  he  that  seaicheth  the  hearts  knoweth  what 
is  the  mind  of  the  Spirit,  because  he  maketh  interces- 
sion for  the  saints  according  to  the  will  of  God. 


ought;  but  the  Spirit  itself  maketh  intercessiou  for 

27  us  with  groauings  which  cannot  be  uttered;   and 

he  that  searcheth  the  hearts  knoweth  what  is  the 

mind  of  the  Spirit,  i  because  he  maketh  intercession 

2S  for  the  saints  according  to  Ike  will  of  (jod.     And  we 


But  the  Spirit  itself.  Plainly  the  Holy 
Spirit,  and  so  confirmatory  of  the  same  appli- 
Ciition  of  the  same  plirase  in  ver.  16.  Maketh 
intercession  for  us  [another  compound  of 
three  words]  >  with  groanings  which  can- 
not be  uttered.  The  words  'for  us'  have 
not  sufficient  manuscript  support.  These  un- 
uttered  groanings,^  though  traceable  to  the 
Holy  Spirit,  take  place  within  our  hearts, 
agreeably  to  ver.  23  ('groan  within  ourselves' ). 
Compare  "joy  unspeakable"  in  1  Peter  1 :  8, 
where  the  opposite  emotion  is  characterized 
by  an  adjective,  differing  very  slightly  in  the 
original  from  the  one  used  here.  Bengel  re- 
marks: "On  both  sides  believers  have  those 
who  groan  with  them  and  make  common 
cause  with  them  ;  below  them  the  whole  crea- 
tion (ver.  22),  above  them  the  Spirit."  Wick- 
liffe's  version  of  this  passage  is  a  quaint  speci- 
men of  the  English  of  his  day:  "The  Spirit 
axeth  for  us  with  sorwinge,  that  moun  not  be 
telde  out."  [The  Spirit  as  another  "Helper" 
or  "Advocate" — Common  and  also  Revised 
Version,  "Comforter" — (John  i4: is)  intercedes 
with  God  for  us,  and  "uses  the  human  organ 
for  his  sighing,  as  he  likewise  does  elsewhere 
for  his  speaking.  Matt.  10:20;  see  also  on 
Gal.  4:6."  (Meyer.)  "  The  Holy  Spirit ..  . 
himself  pleads  in  our  prayers,  raising  us  to 
higher  and  holier  desires  than  we  can  express 
in  words,  which  can  only  find  utterance  in 
sighings  and  aspirations."  (Alford.)  01s- 
hausen,  Lange,  Stuart,  Hodge,  and  others, 
take  this  intercessory  groaning,  inthe  manner 
of  Augustine,  in  a  subjective  sense,  regarding 
it  as  our  groaning  incited  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 


Many,  however,  refer  this  groaning  to  the 
intercession  of  the  objective  Holy  Spirit 
dwelling  in  us.  This  interceding  of  the  Spirit 
of  God  in  us,  with  groauings  for  God's  help 
in  our  behalf,  is  something  we  cannot  compre- 
hend, but  in  one  point  of  view  it  seems  akin 
to  the  suffering  and  intercession  of  our  di%ine 
Lord,  if  not  in  us,  yet  in  the  flesh,  "for  us 
men  and  for  our  salvation."  Philippi  says : 
"To suppose  a  sighing  of  the  Spirit  himself 
without  mediation  of  man's  spirit,  is  alike 
without  meaning  and  Biblical  analogy.  .  .  . 
In  the  intimate  marriage  of  God's  Spirit  with 
man's  spirit,  an  incarnation  of  the  former,  as 
it  were,  takes  place.  The  distinction  between 
the  intercession  of  the  Spirit  and  the  interces- 
sion of  Christ  is  chiefly  to  be  found  in  this, — 
that  Christ  intercedes  without  us,  in  and  by 
himself,  but  the  Spirit  in  and  by  us;  Christ 
by  the  prevalence  of  his  own  merit,  the  Spirit 
on  the  ground  of  the  merit  of  Christ."] 

27.  And   (now)    he   that   searcheth  the 
hearts — this  is  an  Old  Testament  description 

of    God    (l  Sam.  16:  7;  1  Kiilgs  8:  a9;  P.s.  7:  9;  Piov.  15:  11  ; 

jer.  11:  20;  17:  9,  10),  and  Specially  appropriate 
here,  because  it  is  in  the  heart  thtit  the  'un- 
uttered  groanings'  take  place.  Compare  Gal. 
4:  6.  Knoweth  what  is  the  mind  '  of  the 
Spirit — that  is,  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  is  re- 
quired alike  by  the  connection  and  by  the 
usage  in  ver.  6,  7.  Because  he  maketh 
intercession,  etc.  [Philippi  gives  this  para- 
phrase: "As  the  Searcher  of  hearts,  God 
knows  what  is  the  mind  of  the  Spirit;  and  he 
i  knows  it  also  because  the  Spirit  intercedes  for 
the  saints  in  a  way  agreeable  to  God;  "  sinii- 


good.  of  the  nation,  and  for  the  special  glory  of  God? 
And  did  not  some  in  their  prayers  fail  to  add :  "  Never- 
theless, not  my  will  but  thine  be  done"?  But  did  all 
those  prayers  wholly  fail  of  an  answer?  We  think 
not.  The  particular  blessings  (as  we  deemed  them) 
which  were  asked  for  were  denied,  but  equivalent  bless- 
ings were  doubtless  sent,  or  will  be  sent,  in  their  stead, 
just  as  in  the  case  of  Paul's  prayer  for  the  removal  of 
the  thorn  in  his  flesh.  See  2  Cor.  12  :  7-9,  and  compare 
Rom.  1 :  10 ;  15  :  31,  32 ;  see  also  notes  on  15  :  32.  Quite 
apt  are  the  words  of  Shakespeare  on  this  point: 
We,  ignorant  of  ourselves, 
Beg  often  our  own  harms,  which  the  wise  Powers 


Deny  us  for  our  good.    So  find  we  profit 
By  losing  of  our  prayers. 

— "Ant.  and  Cleop.,"  Act  II.,  Scene  I. — (F.) 

1  The  compounds  of  vnip — over,  in  behalf  of,  beyond 
(Latin  :  super)— are  nearly  all  found  iu  Paul's  epistles. 
See  ver.  37.— (F.) 

2  aAaAjjTos  is  by  most  commentators  rendered  inex- 
pressible— that  is,  "groans  which  cannot  be  expressed 
in  words."     (Noyes.) — (F.) 

^  ippovYitia  (the  result  of  thinking),  thought,  purpose, 
meaning,  occurs  four  times  and  only  in  this  Epistle. — 
(F.) 


Ch.  VIII.] 


KOMANS. 


205 


'>8   \nd  we  know  that  all  things  work  together  for  I        know  that  to  them  that  love  God  i  all  things  work 


1  Soiii^  iinciciit  autlioriiies  read  God  ivorketh  all  things  with  them  for  good. 


larly  De  Wette  and  Alford.]  According  to 
the  will  of  (iod— literally,  according  to  God. 
The  idea  is  fully  and  correctly  expressed  in 
our  version,  though  the  words,  'the  will,'  do 
not  stand  in  the  original.  [Winer  objects  to 
the  expression  interceding  'according  to  the 
will  of  God,'  because  "of  the  Spirit  no  differ- 
ent intercession  can  be  thought  of."  Hence  he 
interprets  the  phrase  (Ka-ra  dehv)  'toward  God,' 
'before  God.'  But  this  seems  somewhat 
strained,  and  to  make  the  apostle  here  simply 
to  affirm  that  the  Searcher  of  liearts  knows  that 
the  Spirit  intercedes  before  him  for  saints  is, 
in  the  words  of  Dr.  Hodge,  "making  the 
verse  say  comparatively  little."]  For  (the) 
saints— that  is,  for  holy  persons,  instead  of 
'for  us  '  as  in  ver.  26  [Common  Version]. 

28.  And  [or,  moreover]  we  know— not 
merely  by  divine  promise,  but  by  present 
consciousness:  to  them  that  love  God— 
this  is    no   unusual  way  of  designating  true 

Christians.         (l   Cor.   2:9;    8:  S;    James  1 :  12.)        The 

emphatic  position  of  these  words,  in  the  orig- 
inal Greek,  intiuuvtes  that  this  assurance  is  the 
peculiar  privilege  of  those  that  possess  this 
character.i  That  [a  new  motive  for  '  patience,' 
ver.  '2)1  all  things  work  together  for  good 
—  'all  tilings,'  with  special  reference  to  suffer- 
ings, afflictions,  persecutions,  calamities,  etc., 
'  work  together,'  are  conspiring  harmonious- 
ly ;  [Westcott  and  Hort  adopt  here  the  read- 
ing of  A  B  given  in  the  margin  of  the  Kevised 
Version,  "God  worketh  all  things  with  them 
for  good";  and  Pauline  usage  would  cer- 
tainly favor  the  use  here  of  a  personal  subject; 
see  Buttmann,  193.]  'For  good'— to  a  good 
result;  for  a  benevolent  and  happy  end:  our 


sanctitication  and  perfection.*  [Compare  1 
Cor.  3 :  21,  22.  How  great  the  consolation  to 
feel  that  our  sorest  afflictions  can  be  put 
among  the  'all  things'  which  will  contribute 
to  our  good.  Indeed,  so  comprehensive  is 
this  unlimited  'all  things'  that  some  include 
in  it  all  that  transpires  under  the  universal 
government  and  providence  of  God,  and 
Augustine  went  so  far  as  to  make  the  sins  of 
believers  conducive  to  their  welfare— making 
them  "more  humble  and  docile";  but  this 
consideration  is  evidently  foreign  to  the  apos- 
tle's line  of  thought.  Still  there  is  this  truth 
in  Augustine's  view— namely,  tliat  the  sorrows 
which  our  sins  have  brought  upon  us  can  be 
sanctified  for  our  good.  Only  as  we  love  God 
and  liave  been  called  according  to  his  pur- 
pose, can  we  truly  say  : 

Blessed  be  God  for  all, 

For  all  things  here  below  : 
For  every  loss  and  every  cross 

To  my  advantage  grow.] 

To  them  who  are  the  called  according 
to  his  purpose.  ["  Who  called  us  with  a 
holy  calling,  not  according  to  our  works"  — 
actual  or  foreseen,  not  primarily  by  our  own 
act  and  will— "but  according  to  his  own  pur- 
pose and  grace  which  was  given  us  in  Christ 
Jesus  before  times  eternal."  l2Tim.i:9,Eev.  ver.) 
The  word  'purpose'  (np69«Tii)  save  in  one  in- 
stance (2  Tim.  3:  10)  is  in  Paul's  writings  alwaj'S 
used  of  God's  "eternal  purpose."  Compare  9: 
11;  Eph.l  :  (9),  11;  3:  11.  This callingof  God, 
connected  as  it  is  with  his  immutable  purpose, 
"the  purpose  of  the  ages"  (see  Eph.  3:  11, 
Revised  Version,  margin),  and  "according  to 


1  <^'\yaitav  denotes  love  as  a  direction  of  the  will,  dili- 
gere.  .  .  .  <l>i.l^('ti'  (denoting  the  love  ofatrection,  friend- 
ship) is  never  used  of  the  love  of  men  toward  God  (but 
see  1  Cor.  IG;  22).  Love  to  God  or  our  neighbor  as  a 
commrmd  is  unheard  of  in  the  profane  writers;  this 
love  again  is  always  expressed  by  ayairav."  [And  Prof. 
Jowett  says:  "No  Greek  or  Roman  ever  had  the  con- 
sciousness of  love  toward  bis  god."]  ' '  'AyoTrai'  and  never 
,i>iK(lv  is  used  oT  love  toward  our  enemies.  .  .  .  The 
range  of  </)iAeI«'  is  wider  than  that  of  ayairav,  but  ivaTroi' 
stands  all  the  higher  labove  (fn^eiv  on  account  of  its 
moral- import."  "  ■.\YaT7),  a  word  formed  perhaps  by 
the  LXX.  as  a  companion  to  oYonai',  and  wholly  un- 


known in  the  classics,  became  in  New  Testament  lan- 
guage the  distinctive  designation  of  holy  and  divine 
love,  while  the  Greeks  knew  only  tpw?.  <^iAia,  and 
CTTopyr)."  (Crenier.)  See  also  notes  on  .1 :  .i.  ■.\Ya)75v 
occurs  some  142  times  in  the  New  Testament,  <i)iAerv 
2.1  times. — (F.) 

2  It  was  an  ingenious  and  exhaustive  textual  divi- 
sion of  his  subject  which  a  certain  preacher  made  in 
discoursing  from  this  text  on  "  The  Providence  of  God." 
It  is  1.  Universal— "all  things."  2.  Operative— "  work." 
3.  Harmonious  — "together."  4.  Benevolent —"  for 
good."    0.  Special—"  to  them  that  love  God." 


206 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  VIII. 


29  For  whom  he  did  foreknow,  he  also  did  predesti- 
nate to  be  conformed  to  the  image  of  his  Sod,  that  he 
might  be  the  tirstborn  among  many  bretlireu. 


he  also  foreordained  to  he  conformed  to  the  image 
of  his  Son,  that  he  might  be  the  tirstborn  among 


election"  (Rom.siii)  which  was  "before  the 
foundation  of  the  world"  (Eph.  i;  4),  even  "the 
purpose  of  him  who  worketh  all  things  after 
the  counsel  of  his  own  will"  (Epa.  i :  n),  cannot 
of  course  be  made  in  vain.  To  what  or  for 
what  great  things  we  are  called  of  God  may  be 
seen  in  1  Cor.  1 :  9;  1  Thess.  2:  12;  2  Thess. 
2  :  14 ;  1  Tim.  6 :  12 ;  1  Peter  5 :  10.  Obviously 
those  who  love  God  have  in  their  heavenly 
calling  additional  evidence  that  all  things 
will  contribute  to  their  good.]  Thus  another 
characteristic  of  true  Christians  is  added:  not 
only  do  they  love  God ;  they  are  also  'called 
according  to  his  purpose'  :  the  former  is  the 
etfect  and  proof  of  the  latter.  It  is  quite  in 
accordance  with  the  style  of  Scripture  and  of 
common  life  to  put  that  first  which  is  tangible, 
practical,  phenomenal,  and  then  that  which  is 
back  of  it,  and  the  cause  of  it,  and  so  logically 
precedent.  See  10:  9;  2  Thess.  2 :  13,  etc. 
["As  this  purpose  antedates  creation,  it  must 
be  froin  and  in  himself  alone,  for,  '  with 
whom  took  he  counsel  ?  '  Before  the  creation 
it  must  obviously  have  been  for  the  Creator 
alone  to  determine  what  orders  of  being  to 
create,  and  what  individuals,  with  what  capaci- 
ties to  endue  each,  in  what  relations  and  cir- 
cumstances to  place  him,  and  what  issues  to 
bring  about  in  regard  to  him.  The  objects  to 
be  subserved  by  the  existence  of  each  and  to 
be  effected  by  the  divine  administration 
toward  him,  depended  on  God's  sovereign 
pleasure."     (Ripley.)] 

29.  For — this  verse  and  the  following  em- 
phatically confirm  ver.  28,  showing  that  the 
divine  '  purpose,'  advancing  by  regular  steps 
to  its  fulfillment,  leads  'the  called'  surely  to 
glory  :  whom  he  did  foreknow,  he  also 
did  predestinate  (or,  foreordained).  [The 
word  'predestinate'  is  derived  from  the  Vul- 
gate jorcet/es^inawi^,  through  the  Bishop's  Bible 
and  Rheims  Version.  The  phrase  "'before 
ordeyned''  occurs  in  Wickliffe's  Version.] 
Foreknowledge  and  foreordination  must,  ac- 
cording to  the  structure  of  the  context,  be 
regarded  as  successive  steps  in  the  carrying 
out  of  the  eternal  'purpose.'  We  may  con- 
ceive of  God  as  exercising  his  omniscience  in 
surveying  men,  and  selecting,  on  principles 
and  for  reasons  known  only  to  himself,  but 


dictated  by  his  consummate  wisdom  and  good- 
ness, whom  he  would  ordain  to  eternal  life. 
And  so  the  foreknowledge  may  be  conceived 
of  as  distinct  from  the  foreordination,  and 
logically  antecedent  to  it.  [The  word  fore- 
know— containing  "  the  idea  of  decision  as 
well  as  foreknowledge"  (Boise, — occurs  five 
times  in  the  New  Testament.     In  two  places 

(Acts  26:    5;    2   Peter   3:    17),      it     signifies     prCVioUS 

knowledge  on  the  part  of  men.  In  the  other 
instances,  here,  and  11 :  2,  and  1  Peter  1 :  20, 
it  denotes  the  foreknowledge  which  existed  in 
God  "before  the  foundation  of  the  world"' 
(compare  Rev.  17:  8),  and  which,  as  here 
represented,  was  the  ground  of  his  predestina- 
tion. The  noun,  foreknowledge,  occurs  but 
twice  (Acts  2:  23;  1  Peter  1 :  2),  and  is  associated  with 
the  determinate  counsel  and  election  of  God. 
The  divine  foreknowledge,  as  many  think, 
denotes  not  simply  prescience,  but  an  appro- 
bation or  choice  from  beforehand.  "  To  fore- 
know," says  Cremer,  "is  'to  unite  oneself 
before  with  some  one,'  compare  Rom.  11 :  2. 
'  God  has  not  cast  away  his  people  with  whom 
he  had  joined  himself — that  is,  before  this 
union  was  historically  realized."  On  our  pass- 
age he  says :  "  The  context  suggests  the  union 
of  the  divine  foreknowledge  with  the  divine 
purpose.  As  this  latter  word  denotes  God' s  sav- 
ing decree  preceding  and  forming  the  founda- 
tion of  its  temporal  realization,  so  to  foreknow 
denotes  the  divine  knowing  as  already  present 
in  the  divine  decree  before  its  manifestation 
in  history,  ...  so  that  to  foreknow  corre- 
sponds with  the  choosing  before  the  foundation 
of  the  world,  which  in  Eph.  1  :  4  precedes  [?] 
the  foreordination  just  as  foreknow  does  here. 
Foreknowing,  however,  essentially  includes 
a  self-determining  on  God's  part  to  this  fellow- 
ship (whom  God  had  beforehand  entered  into 
fellowship  with),  whereas  the  choosing  merely 
expresses  a  determining  directed  to  the  objects 
of  the  fellowship."  Meyer  and  others  ignore 
any  approving  beforehand  or  any  appropriat- 
ing cognizance  in  the  signification  of  this 
word, and  make  it  mean  sitnplj'  to  know  before- 
hand; "He  foreknew  them  ;  namely,  as  those 
who  should  one  day,  in  the  waj^  of  the  divine 
plan  of  salvation,  be  conformed  to  the  image 
of  his  Son,"  or  as  Godet  (with  a  less  degree 


Ch.  VIIL] 


ROMANS. 


207 


of  Piuilinism)  1ms  it:  "whom  God  knew 
beforeliund  as  certain  to  believe."  The  mere 
logical  faculty  would  be  well  content  with 
this  affirmation,  that  God  foreknew  those 
whom  he  iiad  purposed  to  save.  "It  is  evi- 
dent on  theone  hand,"  says  Dr.  Hodge,  "that 
foreknowledge  (Trpoyvwo-is)  expresses  something 
more  than  the  prescience  of  which  all  men 
and  all  events  are  the  objects,  and,  on  the 
other,  something  different  from  the  predesti- 
nation expressed  by  the  following  word.  .  .  . 
The  foreknowledge,  therefore,  expresses  the 
act  of  cognition  or  recognition,  the  fixing,  so 
to  speak,  the  mind  upon,  which  involves  the 
idea  of  selection."  And  this  selection  or 
choice  is  based  not  on  any  foreseen  meritorious 
.  act  of  those  chosen,  but  on  the  good  pleasure 
and  purpose  of  the  chooser.  "  Far  be  it  from 
us,"  says  Augustine,  "to  ascribe  the  choice 
to  the  clay  instead  of  the  potter."  Our  Lord 
m&y  say   to  all   his  disciples:   "Ye   did   not 

choose  me,   but  I  chose    you,"    (JohnlD:  le,  Revised 

Version),  and  Paul's  query:  "Who  niaketh 
thee  to  differ?  "  can  only  be  answered  in  one 
■way.  That  this  election  or  choice  does  not 
depend  on  God's  foreknowledge  of  our  faith 
or  goodness  is  also  evident  from  the  declara- 
tion of  the  same  apostle,  that  we  were  chosen 
in  Christ  "before  the  foundation  of  the  world 
that  we  should  be  holy."  Hee  Eph.  1:  4. 
"  The  divine  foreknowledge,"  says  Dr.  Weiss, 
"is  certainly  not  a  foreknowledge  of  faith 
•which  he  himself  produces,  but  of  a  recep- 
tivity by  which  he  alone  can  and  will  work 
faith."  This  writer  does  not  state  how  this 
"receptivity"  was  foreknown.  In  the  passage 
before  us  foreknowledge  precedes  the  divine 
predestination,  and  so,  in  the  phrase:  "elect 
according  to  the  foreknowledge  of  God" 
(1  Peter  1: 2),  the  foreknowledge  sccms  to  precede 
the  election.  Yet  many  theologians  make 
God's  foreknowledge  to  depend  upon  his 
decree.  "If  God  foresees  events,  he  must 
have  predetermined  them."  (Hale.)  "God 
could  not  foreknow  that  things  would  be, 
unless  he  had  decreed  they  should  be."  (Ed- 
wards.) "The  foundation  of  the  foreknowl- 
edge of  an  event  as  certainly  future  is  God's 
decree  that  made  it  future."  (A.  A.  Hodge.) 
Omniscience  certainly  cannot  foreknow  a 
thing  which  is  contingent,  which  may  be  or 
maj-  not  be.  There  must  be  an  absolute  cer- 
tainty as  to  the  existence  of  anj'  future  event. 


though  this  sure  event  may  be  and  is  coupled 
with  free,  voluntary,  responsible,  action.  We 
may  purpose  and  determine  to  build  a  house 
at  such  a  time  and  place,  but  we  cannot  fore- 
know the  existence  of  that  house,  unless  its 
existence  is  certain,  and  we  in  some  way 
are  made  sure  of  its  certainty.  God's  fore- 
knowledge is  of  course  different  from  ours. 
With  him  there  is  properly  no  lapse  of  time, 
no  succession,  no  before  or  after  ;  his  knowl- 
edge is  present,  immediate,  complete,  yet  it 
cannot  dispense  with  this  certainty.  And  in 
reference  to  human  events  happening  in  time 
we  must  speak  as  the  Scriptures  do,  of  God's 
/oreknowing.  But  his  foreknowledge  and  his 
predetermination  are  in  fact  co-ordinate  and 
eternal.  He  cannot  decree  anything  without 
knowing  about  that  thing,  and  he  cannot  fore- 
know anything  without  decreeing  it.  Fore- 
knowledge and  foreordination  involve  each 
other.  Foreknowledge  in  itself  may  not 
cause  the  certainty  of  future  events,  but  it  is 
a  proof  that  those  events  must  be  certain. 
Prof.  Stuart  says  that  divine  foreknowledge 
necessitates  "the  conclusion  that  certainty 
must  exist,  by  the  divine  purpose  and  counsel, 
in  regard  to  the  called— a  certainty  not  merely 
that  they  will  be  saved  provided  they  believe 
and  obey  and  persevere  in  so  doing,  but  a 
certainty  that  'the  called  according  to  his 
purpose'  will  be  brought  to  believe,  obey,  and 
persevere,  and  will  therefore  obtain  salvation  ; 
for  such  is  the  manifest  tenor  of  the  whole 
passage."]  But  this  foreknowing  must  not  be 
explained  asmerely  the  foreknowledge  of  their 
future  repentance  and  faith  ;  for  this  would 
make  their  repentance  and  faith  the  cause, 
and  not,  as  they  truly  are,  the  consequence,  of 
their  foreordination.  See  1  Cor.  4:  7.  [The 
verb  foreordained  (rrpoopi'^o)),  nearly  equiva- 
lent, etymologically,  to  our  predetermine,  is 
found  six  times  in  the  New  Testament  (Acts*: 

28;  Eom.8:  29,30;  1  Cor.  2  ;  7;  Eph.  1:  5,  ll),  aild  in  CVCry 

instance  is  rendered  foreordained  in  the  Re- 
vised Version.  As  used  by  Paul,  it  denotes 
the  divine  predestination  of  individual  be- 
lievers to  adoption  as  sons,  to  conformity  with 
Christ,  and  to  eternal  glory.  And  according 
to  apostolic  teaching  this  predetermining  of 
individuals  to  salvation  took  place  "before 
tlie  ages"  and  "before  the  foundation  of  the 
world"  (compare  1  Cor.  2:  7;  Eph.  1:4; 
Rev.  17  :  8),  and  is  based  simply  on  the  eter- 


208 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  VIII. 


nal  purpose  of  God  and  the  good  pleasure  of 
his  will.  In  Acts  4:  28  we  are  taught  that 
the  evil  deeds  of  Christ's  murder<;rs  were 
connected  with  the  divine  predetermination. 
But  in  all  of  Paul's  writings,  while  he  ascribes 
the  highest  sovereignty  to  God,  and  affirms 
that  the  potter  has  power  over  the  clay  from 
the  same  lump  to  make  vessels  unto  honor 
and  vessels  unto  dishonor,  and  that  God  hath 
mercy  on  whom  he  will  and  whom  he  will  he 
hardeneth,  he  yet  very  carefully  abstains 
from  saying  that  God  himself  has  fitted  any 
vessel  of  wrath  unto  destruction,  or  that  he 
has  predestinated  any,  according  to  his  good 
pleasure,  unto  perdition.  The  divine  decrees 
are,  indeed,  a  "subject  of  itself  rather  intri- 
cate" (Calvin),  and  are  a  stumbling-block 
and  an  otiense  to  many.  Still,  to  our  logical 
understanding  no  conclusion  seems  more 
legitimate  and  true  than  this,  that  God  "ac- 
cording to  the  counsel  of  his  will  .  .  .  hath 
foreordained  whatsoever  comes  to  pass."  i  For 
this  is  but  saying  that  the  divine  and  almighty 
Architect,  when  he  purposed  creation,  had 
a  full  and  perfect  plan  of  all  things,  and  that 
the  existing  state  of  things  fully  accords  with 
his  original  plan.  We  pray,  indeed,  "Thy 
will  be  done  on  earth,"  implying  that  it  is  not 
done  at  present  (compare  1  Tim.  2 :  4 ;  2  Peter 
3:9);  and  yet  we  must  at  the  same  time  ac- 
knowledge that  God's  eterr.al  purpose  can  in 
no  instance  fail  of  accomplishment,  and  that 
even  now  his  determinate  counsel,  his  formed 
purpose  or  decretive  will,  is  done  on  earth, 
otherwise  we  make  him  an  ignorant  or  dis- 


appointed weakling  like  ourselves.^  It  may 
seem  to  us  that  predestination  on  the  part  of 
God  is  inconsistent  with  human  freedom,  yet 
both  are  reconcilable  because  both  are  true, 
though  it  is  impossible  for  us,  with  our  present 
limitations  and  in  our  present  state  of  dark- 
ness and  obscurity,  fully  to  show  their  com- 
patibility. We  should, therefore, deny  neither, 
but  firmly  and  boldly'  maintain  both,  even  as 
Peter  and  the  other  apostles  do  in  Acts  2 :  23; 
4:27,28;  compare  3  :  17,  18.  "Him  being 
delivered  up  by  the  determinate  counsel  and 
foreknowledge  of  God,  ye  by  the  hand  of 
lawless  men  did  crucify  and  slaj'."  (Acts  2: 23, 
Revised  Version.)  "Both  Herod  and  Pontius  Pilate 
with  the  Gentiles  and  the  peoples  of  Israel, 
were  gathered  together,  to  do  whatsoever  thy 
hand  and  thj'  counsel  foreordained  to  come 

to    pass."       (Acts  4  :  27,  28,  Revised  Version.)       Compare 

Matt.  18  :  7.  We  may  properly  add  that  some, 
as  Godet  and  Philippi,  are  of  the  opinion  that 
had  Paul  sought  to  resolve  "the  speculative 
question  between  God's  eternal  plan  and  the 
freedom  of  human  determinations,"  he  would 
have  done  so  "by  means  of  the  fact  affirmed 
by  him  of  divine  foreknowledge^  These 
writers  consequently  hold  to  a  predestination 
which  is  not  absolute,  but  which  is  based  on 
foreknowledge  of  faith.  And  Godet  goes  so  far 
as  to  imply  that  this  foreseen  faith  which  fur- 
nishes the  ground  for  a  pi-edestination  to  glory 
(he  ignores  any  predestination  to  faith)  must 
not  be  a  divine  creation,  but  of  human  origi- 
nation. But  to  our  mind  little  aid  comes  from 
any  view  we  can  take  of  foreknowledge,  since 


1  We  may  even  say,  in  general  terms,  that  God's  sov- 
ereign, eternal,  purpose  covers  the  actions  and  the 
destiny  of  wicked  and  lost  men.  Thus  Olshausen, 
■while  discarding  the  idea  of  God's  willing  evil  as  evil, 
or  his  working  evil  in  the  hearts  of  men,  or  his  pre- 
destinating the  evil  to  evii,  yet  affirms  it  to  be  "  impos- 
sible to  exclude  evil,  viewed  as  a  phenomenon,  from 
the  divine  operations."  AW  theists  must  admit  that 
evil  takes  place  under  God's  permissive  decree,  or,  at 
least,  that  he  permits  evil  to  exist,  and  some  such  view 
as  this  seems  most  accordant  with  the  spirit  and  gen- 
eral tenor  of  the  Scriptures;  compare  9:  22,  "endured 
with  much  long  suffering."  Yet  the  Supralapsarian 
predestinationist  denies  that  this  view  has  any  great 
advantage  over  his  own,  since  any  one  is  naturally  held 
responsible  for  permitting  an  evil  if  he  could  have  pre- 
vented it.  Nor  can  the  permission  theory  dispute  the 
fact  that  the  Omniscient  God  created  those  who  he 
foreknew  would  certainly  be  lost.  In  Calvin's  view, 
God  predestinated  all  mankind  in  the  person  of  Adam 


to  corruption,  which  involved  them  in  condemnation 
and  eternal  death,  and  he  frankly  confesses  this  to  be 
a  decretiim  horribile — an  awful  decree — (the  word  horri- 
bile  being  used  by  Calvin,  not  in  our  sense  of  horrible, 
but  as  something  fearful  or  terrible,  just  as  Luther,  in 
his  baptismal  prayer,  speaks  of  God's  ''  horrible  judg- 
ment "  in  his  destroying  the  wicked  world  with  the 
flood).  Furthermore,  from  a  Sublapsarian  point  of 
view,  he  held  that  God  by  an  absolute  decree  of  grace 
elected  some  from  this  massa  perditionis  to  eternal  life 
and  reprobated  (with  less  exercise  of  power)  others  to 
eternal  damnation.  Augustine,  we  believe,  never  advo- 
cated a  predestination  to  eternal  death,  and  most  theo- 
logiiins  have  been  content  to  say  that  God  pn.ssed  by  or 
left  the  vessels  of  wrath  to  bear  the  just  consequences 
of  their  sins. — (F.) 

2  On  the  secret  and  revealed  or  disposing  and  precep- 
tive will  of  God,  see  Edwards'  "  Works,"  Vol.  XL,  pp. 
161-164,  513-516,  546.— (F.) 


Ch.  VIII.] 


ROMANS. 


209 


we  Ciin  think  of  nothing  which  God  could  I  were  predestinated  to  be  conformed  to  the 
foreknow  save  only  that  which  he  had  deter-  image  of  his  Son.  And  no  one  can  suppose 
mined  to  create.  The  view  that  God's  "/o?'e-  the  apostle  to  have  lield  that  any  of  tlie  incor- 
seeing  is  seeing — knowing  what  shall  bo  is  rigibly  impenitent  were  thus  foreknown  or 
knowing  what  to  him  already  is"  (Godet) —  predestinated  or  called.  Yet  all  men  are  sin- 
is,  perhaps,  as  satisfactory  to  our  minds  as  i  cerely  invited  by  the  gospel  message;  all,  we 
any.    Our  own  view,  however,  mainly  accords  ■  may  believe,  are  to  some  extent  moved  by  the 


with  the  following  remarks  of  Alford:  "It 
may  suffice  to  say  that,  on  the  one  hand, 
Scripture  bears  constant  testimony  to  the  fact 
that  all  believers  are  chosen  and  called  by 
God,  their  whole  spiritual  life — in  its  origin, 
progress,  and  completion— being  from  him; 
while,  on  the  other  hand,  its  testimony  is  no 
less  precise  that  he  willeth  all  to  be  saved,  and 
that  none  shall  perish  except  by  willful  rejec- 
tion of  the  truth.  So  that,  on  the  one  side, 
God's  sovereignty,  on  the  other,  man's 
FREE  WILL,  is  plainly  declared  to  us.  To 
receive,  believe,  and  act  on  both  these  is  our 
duty  and  our  wisdom.  They  belong,  as  truths, 
no  less  to  imtural  tiian  to  revealed  religion, 
and  every  one  who  believes  in  a  God  must 
acknowledge  both.  But  all  &tiem\>tsio  bridge 
over  the  gulf  between  tlte  two  are  futile  in  the 
present  imperfect  condition  of  man."  The 
following  is  the  view  of  Prof.  Riddle:   "That 


Spirit;  and  hence  all  who  refuse  to  obey  are 
"without  excuse."]  To  be  conformed  to 
the  image  of  his  Son.  [Compare  2  Cor. 
3  :  18.  The  adjective  (oTJ/uiMop^ot)  'conformed' 
occurs  elsewhere  only  in  Phil.  3  :  21,  where  it 
is  followed,  not  as  here  by  the  genitive,  but 
by  the  dative,  and  the  reference  is  to  the  body 
of  Christ's  glory.  In  Phil.  3  :  10,  a  related 
verb  speaks  of  conformity  to  Christ's  death. 
In  our  passage,  the  conformity  of  the  predes- 
tinate to  the  great  Exemplar  is  both  physical 
and  spiritual.  The  divine  predestination  has 
always  a  gracious  purpose.  We  are  elect 
unto  obedience ;  we  were  chosen  that  we 
should  be  holy,  (i  Peter  i:2;  Eph.  i:4.)  Only  the 
obedient  and  the  holy  can  have  any  assurance 
of  their  heavenly  calling.  Have  we  not  reason 
to  fear  that  many  professing  Christians — so 
faint  is  their  resemblance  to  Christ  here — will 
never  bear  the  glorious  image  of  the  Son  of 


the  word  means  foreordained,  predestinated,  iGod?]  The  verb  'to  be'  is  omitted  in  the 
is  certain;  that  it  is  here  applied  to  individuals  j  Greek,  perhaps  on  account  of  its  being  re- 
is  obvious;  that  it  implies  a  pre-terrestrial  act  I  quired  in  the  next  clause.  The  conformity 
of  the  Divine  Mind  is  in  accordance  with  the  \  here  mentioned  is  to  be  perfected  at  the  corn- 
current  of  thought  in  the  chapter,  the  Scrip-  ing  of  Christ,  according  to  1  John  3  :  2.  The 
tural  conception  of  God's  purpose,  and  the  j  word  'image'  is  not  superfluous;  Christ  is 
use  of  the  word  in  other  passages.  It  is  only  I  the  model,  the  pattern  of  glorified  humanity, 
one  side  of  the  truth,  indeed,  but  the  other  i  That  he  might  be  the  firstborn  [in  order 
side  is  not  more  firmly  established  by  ignoring  '  that,  denoting  the  final  aim,  as  regards  Christ, 
this.  The  only  reconciliation  of  the  difficultj'  \  of  the  predestinating]  among  many  breth- 
is  in  practical  Christian  experience,  and  Paul  ;  ren — that  is,  that  many  might  be  conformed 
is  addressing  himself  to  this  throughout."  i  to  his  image,  and  so  by  grace  be  made  worthy 
Some  deny  that  Paul  in  this  discussion  teaches  I  to  be  called  his  brethren.  ["The  object  of 
the  dogma  of  a  rfec7-e!;«mrt6so/«!^i<m,  which  de- ;  the  Christian  scheme  is  that  Christ  may  not 
termined  from  all  eternity  that  only  a  certain  }  stand  alone  in  the  isolated  glory  of  his  pre- 
number  shall  certainly  be  saved,  since  his  i  existence,  but  that  ho  may  be  surrounded  by 
design  in  this  passage  is  simply  to  show  that  a  numerous  brotherhood  fashioned  after  his 
all  who  are  called  according  to  God's  purpose  j  likeness  as  he  is  in  the  likeness  of  God." 
will   never  be  separated  from  his  love,  and  !  (Principal  Sanday,  in  EUicott's  "New  Tosta- 


that  as  God  is  for  them,  all  things,  even  afflic- 
tions and  tribulations,  will  be  made  to  con- 
tribute to  their  good.  This  is,  indeed,  his 
design,  but  his  argumentation  implies  this  at 
least, — that  all  who  are  justified  and  saved  in 
Christ  are  called  according  to  God's  purpose, 
and  were  foreknown  from  eternity  as  his,  and 


ment  Commentarj'." )  The  term  'firstborn' 
denotes  both  priority  and  pre-eminence.  It 
is  this  passage  which  authorizes  us  to  speak  of 
Christ  as  our  Elder  Brother.] 

30.  Moreover,  whom  he  did  predesti- 
Mate,  them  he  also  called.  [Some  regard 
the  verb  'called,'  as  also  other  verbs  which 


210 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  VIII. 


30  Moreover,  whom  he  did  predestinate,  them  he  also 
called:  aud  whom  he  called,  them  he  also  justitied  : 
and  whom  he  justified,  them  lie  also  glorified. 

31  What  shall  we  then  say  to  these  things?  If  God 
lie  for  us,  who  can  be  against  us? 


30  many  hrethren :  and  whom  he  foreordained,  them 
he  also  called:  aud  whom  he  called,  them  he  also 
justified:  and  whom  he  justified,  them  he  also  glori- 
fied. 

31  What  then  shall  we  say  to  these  things?    If  God 
3:!  is  for  us,  who  is  against  us?    He  that  spared  not  his 


follow,  especially  the  last  in  the  verse,  as  the 
past  tense  used  for  the  present,  and  expressive 
of  what  is  customary.  A  better  view  is  that 
everthing  connected  with  this  divine  economy 
of  saving  grace  is  so  certain  that,  though 
future,  it  may  be  regarded  as  good  as  accom- 
})lislied.]  The  calling  here,  as  generally  in 
the  epistles,  is  not  a  mere  outward  invitation, 
or  offer  of  salvation,  but  an  inward  calling, 
made  effectual  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  Aud 
whom  he  called,  them  he  also  justified. 
This  shows  conclusively  by  what  kind  of  a 
calling  it  was.  ["Tliough  by  choosing  his 
people  the  Lord  has  adopted  them  as  his  chil- 
dren, yet  we  see  that  they  enter  not  on  so 
great  a  blessing  till  they  are  called."  (Cal- 
vin.) "Effectual  calling,"  says  Edwards,  "is 
the  proper  execution  of  election."  Godet  sup- 
poses that  all  men  who  hear  the  gospel  have 
"an  outward  call  by  the  word  and  an  inward 
call  by  grace,"  and  that  "all  are  alike  seri- 
ously called.  Only  it  happens  that  some  con- 
sent to  yield  to  the  call  and  others  refuse." 
We  imagine  that  this  happening  has  some- 
thing to  do  with  the  divine  purpose.  If  all 
depended  upon  the  human  will,  it  might  hap- 
pen that  none  of  the  invited  ones  would  be 
found  among  the  heavenly  guests.]  And 
whom  he  justified  [in  a  forensic  sense  op- 
posed to  condemned],  them  he  also  glori- 
fied. ["Whom  God  predestinated  before  the 
M'Orld,  he  called  from  the  world,  justified  in 
the  world,  and  will  glorify  after  the  world." 
Godet  says  that  had  Paul  designed  "to  explain 
the  order  of  salvation  in  all  its  elements,  divine 
a7id  human,  he  would  have  T^wi  faith  between 


calling  and  justification,  and  holiness  between 
justification  and  glorification."]  This  last 
step  in  the  process,  though  referring  to  what 
is  yet  future,  is  expressed,  like  the  preceding 
steps,  in  the  past  tense,  to  show  that  these 
processes  are  all  linked  together  in  an  indis- 
soluble chain,  so  that  where  one  is  found  the 
rest  are  sure  to  be  found  also;  and  the  con- 
summation is  as  sure  as  if  it  was  already  a 
matter  of  history. i 

Conclusion  as  to  the  certainty  of  the  salva- 
tion of  Christians,  ver.  31-39:  Their  salvation 
is  certain  (ver. 31),  because  God  has  given  his 
Son  (ver. 32, 33),  and  the  Son  of  God  has  died 
and  risen  from  the  dead  (ver. 34),  and  therefore 
they  can  never  be  separated  from  the  love  of 
either  by  any  vicissitudes  of  the  present  life 
(ver.  36, 37),  or  by  any  other  agencies  or  events 
whatsoever,     (ver.  38,  .S9.) 

31.  What  shall  we  then  say  to  these 
things?  What,  indeed,  can  the  hesitating 
or  discouraged  soul  find  to  say  in  view  of 
such  an  array  of  the  inerciful  acts  of  God's 
love  [his  predestinating,  calling,  justifying, 
glorifying  purpose]  as  the  apostle  here  pre- 
sents? What  but  this:  If  God  be  {is)  for 
us,  who  can  be  (is)  against  us?  ["The 
inspired  faith  of  the  apostle,  leaving  all  earthly 
things  far  down  below  his  feet,  reflects  itself 
in  the  sublimity  of  the  language."  (Philippi.) 
"'What  shall  we  then  say'  is  used  here," 
says  Tholuck,  "  contrary  to  the  apostle's  cus- 
tom, in  a  conclusion  which  has  not  a  doubtful 
character."  Ver.  30  of  the  next  chapter  also 
introduces  a  correct  conclusion.  Compare,  on 
the  other  hand,  3:5;  4:1;  6:1;  7:7;  9:14.] 


1  This  golden  chain,  to  which  no  links  are  wanting, 
reaches  from  eternity  to  eternity — "from  everlasting 
in  predestination  to  everlasting  in  beatification."  (St. 
Bernard.)  On  the  connection  of  these  links.  Arch- 
bishop Leighton  (on  Peter)  appropriately  remarks  that 
"  Ett'ectual  calling  is  inseparably  tied  to  this  eternal 
foreknowledge  or  election  on  the  one  side  and  to  salva- 
tion on  the  other.  These  two  links  of  the  chain  are  up 
in  heaven  in  God's  own  hand,  but  this  middle  one  is 
letdown  to  earth  into  the  hearts  of  his  children,  and 
they  laying  hold  on  it  have  sure  hold  on  the  other  two, 
lor  no  pcwer  can  sever  them."    "Before  the  divine 


intuition,"  says  Tholuck,  "  which  is  independent  of 
time,  fallen  humanity  appears  from  all  eternity,  not 
only  as  redeemed,  but  likewise  as  enjoying  the  fruits 
of  redemption  and  as  exalted  to  glory."  "  No  one," 
says  Chalmers,  "  can  read  in  the  book  of  God's  decrees 
that  he  has  been  predestined  unto  glory,  but  all  may 
read  in  the  book  of  his  declarations  what  be  the  marks 
of  those  who  travel  thitherward.  These  he  can  com- 
pare with  the  book  of  his  own  character  and  experi- 
ence, and  he  can  count  upon  his  own  special  destina- 
tion to  an  eternity  of  blisR  only  in  as  far,  aud  in  no 
farther  than,  as  he  is  sanctified." — (F.) 


Ch.  VIII.] 


ROMANS. 


211 


32  He  that  spared  not  his  own  Son,  but  delivered 
him  ii|)  lor  us  all,  how  shall  he  not  with  him  also  freely 
give  us  all  thijjgs. 

33  Who  shall  lay  any  tiling  to  the  charge  of  God's 
ek'Ct  ?     It  is  God  that  justitiet  li. 

o4  Who  is  he  that  coudemneth?  Il  is  Christ  that 
died,  yea  rather,  that  is  risen  a^aiIl,  who  is  even  at  the 
right  hand  of  God,  who  also  maketh  intercession  for  us. 


own  Son,  but  delivered  him  up  for  us  all,  how  shall 
he   not  also    with    him   freely   give   us   all   things? 

33  Who  shall    lay   anything  to   the  charge  of    God's 

34  elect?  'It  is  God  that  justiheth;  who  is  he  that 
condemneth?  ^  It  is  Christ  Jesus  that  died,  yea 
rather,  that  was  raised  from  the  dead,  who  is  at  the 
right  hand  of  God,  who  also  maketh  intercession 


1  Or,  Shall  God  that  justifieth  t 2  Or,  Shall  Christ  Jesus  that  died,  .  .  .  usr 


32.  He  that  [  (iis  v«)  lie  icho  indeed — that 
is,  inasmuch  as  he,  or  being  such  an  one  as 
he]  spared  not  his  own  Son.  ['Si>nred'  is 
an  expressive  word,  denoting  God's  great 
sacritic'e  in  giving  up  his  only  begotten  Son — 
"the  Son  of  his  love."  Compare  in  LXX., 
Gen.  22:  12.  "God,  so  to  speak,  did  violence 
to  his  paternallove."  (Bengel.)^]  He  surely, 
seeing  he  did  not  even  spare  his  own  Son 
(compare  ver.  3,  also  John  3:  16;  5:  18), 
but  delivered  him  up — (that  is,  to  death) 
(compare  4:  25;  Matt.  10  :  21)— for  us  all 
(tlie  extent  of  this  expression,  so  far  as  this 
particular  passage  is  concerned,  is  defined  by 
the  7is  of  the  next  clause),  how  shall  he  not 
with  him  also  freely  give  us  all  things? 
^that  is,  all  things  pertaining  to  life  and  god- 
liness.       (2  Peter  1:3.)        "  For     tO    givB     US    all 

things  with  hitn  is  less  than  to  deliver  up 
him  to  death  for  our  sake."  (Ambrosiaster. ) 
[An  argument  from  the  greater  to  the  less. 
God's  eternal  purpose  to  save,  and  the  giving 
up  to  death  of  his  own  Son  to  etfect  that  sal- 
vation, is  a  sufficient  proof  that  he  is  "for 
us"  and  that  he  will  withhold  "no  good 
thing."] 

33.  Who  shall  lay  any  thing,  etc.  AVho 
sliall  bring  an  accusation  against  God's  elect? 
[This  verb,  to  accuse,  is  elsewhere  followed 
by  the  simple  dative.^  The  elect  or  chosen 
ones  of  God,  some  of  whom  certainlj'  must 
be  found  in  our  Christian  churches,  have 
plentj'  of  accusers  in  this  world.  Indeed, 
many  of  the  so-called  "world's  people"  live 
on  the  faults,  real  or  imagined,  of  God's  pro- 
fessed children — a  most  miserable  diet! — and 


some  of  them  by  their  talk  and  action  would 
seem  to  think  that  if  they  could  take  an  im- 
perfect minister  and  a  few  delinquent  church 
members  with  them  to  the  bar  of  God  it 
would  go  all  right  with  them  in  the  judgment. 
No  doubt  God's  true  people  are  fault3'  enough. 
Indeed,  their  own  hearts  and  consciences  are 
their  swiftest  and  loudest  accusers.  But  if 
God  will  justify'  the  sincerely  penitent  be- 
liever as  being  found  in  Christ,  all  accusations 
of  the  ungodly  will  be  in  vain,  availing  nothing 
either  against  the  believer  or  for  themselves 
at  the  bar  of  judgment  where  each  one  shall 
give  account  of  himself  alone.  See  14:  12.] 
The  impossibility  of  any  charge  against  God's 
elect  that  should  hinder  his  purpose  to  give 
them  all  things,  is  implied  in  the  question  ; 
and  is  indirectly  asserted  in  the  next  clause: 
for  the  Judge  himself,  before  whom  the  accu- 
sation would  have  to  be  presented,  has  already 
pronounced  them  acquitted.  God  is  the  one 
who  justifies.  [Compare  this  and  the  follow- 
ing verse  with  Isa.  50:  7-9.] 

34.  Who  is  he  that  condemneth?  [or, 
shall  condemn,  according  to  AVestcott  and 
Hort  and  the  Canterbury  Eevision.  Prof. 
Cremer  makes  this  'condemneth'  to  mean 
not  only  to  pronounce  condemnation,  but  to 
execute  it  as  a  judge.]  The  first  clause  in 
this  verse  seems  naturally  to  connect  itself 
with  the  last  clause  of  the  preceding:  but  at 
this  point  there  is  a  transition  from  God  to 
Christ.  As  it  is  impossible  that  any  accusa- 
tion should  frustrate  the  divine  purpose  to 
save  them  on  God's  part,  so  it  is  equally  im- 
possible on  Christ's  part.     It  is  Christ  that 


1  •'  There  is,"  says  Chalmers,  "  an  academic  theology 
which  would  divest  God  of  all  sensibility,  which  would 
make  of  him  a  being  devoid  of  all  emotion  and  all  ten- 
derness, which  concedes  to  him  power  and  wisdom  and 
a  .sort  of  cold  and  clear  and  faultless  morality,  but 
which  would  denude  bim  of  all  those  fond  and  father- 
ly regards  that  so  endear  an  earthly  parent  to  the 
children  who  have  sprung  from  bim.  ...  I  fear  that 
such  representations  as  these  have  done  mischief  in 
Christianity." — (F.)  | 


2  Winer  says  that  the  use  of  prepositions  with  cases 
instead  of  cases  alone,  is  a  "general  characteristic  of 
(antique)  simplicity,"  and  especially  accords  with  the 
"graphic  and  explicit  phraseology  of  Orientals."  Accord- 
ingly, "  we  find  that  in  the  New  Testament,  agreeably 
to  the  Eastern  idiom  and  sometimssin  direct  imitation 
of  it,  prepositions  are  frequently  employed  where  in 
classic  Greek  the  simple  cases  would  have  sufficed 
even  in  prose." — (F.) 


212 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  VIII. 


35  Who  shall  separate  us  from  the  love  of  Christ? 
shall  tribulation,  or  distress,  or  persecution,  or  famine, 
or  nakedness,  or  peril,  or  sword? 


35  for  us.    Who  shall  separate  us  from  the  love  lof 
Christ?  shall  tribulation,  or  anguish,  or  persecution, 


1  SoDie  ancient  authorities  read  o/  God. 


died«  etc.  Christ  Jesus  (for  that  seems  to  be 
the  correct  reading)  is  he  who  died,  yea,  rather 
that  rose  ['  was  raised' ;  the  lievisers'  text  has 
from  the  dead  (U  vtKpiav),  the  reading  of  X  A  C]. 
Who  is  even  at  the  right  hand  of  God — 
[literally:  "znthe  right  hand  "  (place),  the 
place  of  power  and  honor,  the  throne  of  deity. 
Compare  Eph.  1:  20;  Kev.  3:  21:  22:  1], 
(the  word  'even'  here  is  of  doubtful  genuine- 
ness). Who  also  maketh  intercession  (in- 
tercedes) for  Hs.  [The  same  verb  occurs  at 
ver.  27;  11:  2  (at  8:  26  in  a  compounded 
form),  also  Acts  25:  24;  Heb.  7:  25.  The 
apostle  has  previously  affirmed  that  Christ 
was  delivered  up  for  our  ofienses  and  was 
raised  for  our  justification.  And  now,  while 
virtually  everywhere  present  by  his  Spirit,  he 
is  yet  exalted  at  God's  right  hand  in  heaven 
itself,  there  as  our  Paraclete  to  intercede  for 
us — the  exaltation  sliovving  his  ability,  and 
the  intercession  showing  his  willingness  to 
save.  (Bengel.)  As  De  "VVette  says:  "All 
the  points  of  Christ's  redemptive  work  from 
his  death  to  his  still  enduring  intercession  are 
adduced  in  one  series  as  grounds  for  refuting 
the  above  question."  Well  may  the  apostle 
ask:  "Who  shall  separate  tis  from  the  love 
of  Christ"  ?]  De  Wette,  Alford,  and  other 
critical  editors,  make  each  clause  in  ver.  33, 
34,  interrogative  [as  in  the  margin  of  the 
Revised  Version  and  in  accordance  with  the 
structure  of  ver.  35].  But  it  is  better  to  regard 
only  the  first  clause  in  each  verse  as  inter- 
rogative, and  the  succeeding  clauses  as  in- 
direct answers  to  the  interrogatories  [as  is 
done  in  Dr.  Noyes'  translation  and  in  our 
Common  Version.  This  punctuation  is  also 
adopted  by  Fritzsche,  Philippi,  Lange,  Godet, 
Hodge,  Stuart,  and  others].  The  structure  of 
ver.  34,  particularly,  is  such  as  hardly  to 
admit  of  its  being  divided  into  four  or  five 
separate  questions,  or  regarded,  after  the  first 
clause,  as  one  compound  interrogatory.  [The 
text  of  the  Revised  Version,  and  of  the  Bible 


Union  gives  still  another  mode  of  pointing, 
which  is  substantially  that  of  Meyer  and 
Gilford,  only  they  would  somewhat  closely 
join  the  beginning  of  ver.  35  with  ver.  34, 
thus:  "  Christ  is  he  that  died,  .  .  .  who  shall 
separate  us  from  the  love  of  Christ?"] 

The  particular  mode  in  which  Christ  inter- 
cedes for  us  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  whether 
directly  and  orally,  or  only  by  his  presence 
there,  is  nowhere  explained.  [Meyer  says 
this  intercession  must  be  conceived  as  vocal 
and  oral  "because  it  is  made  by  the  glorified 
God-man."  This  intercession,  he  further  re- 
marks, "is  the  continuous  bringing  to  hear  of 
his  work  of  atonement  completed  by  his 
'propitiation'  on  the  part  of  Christ  in  his 
glory  with  the  Father;  which  we  are  to  con- 
ceive of  as  real  and — in  virtue  of  the  glorified 
corporeity  of  the  exalted  Christ,  as  also  in 
virtue  of  the  subordination  in  which  he,  even 
as  occupant  of  the  same  throne,  stands  to 
the  Father — as  a  request  properly  so-called 
through  which  the  'continuus  quasi  vigor' 
(Gerhard)  of  redemption  takes  place.  Com- 
pare John  14:  16."  Whatever  the  necessity 
of  this  intercession,  it  is  not  to  be  found  in 
the  fact  that  God  the  Father  is  all  justice 
and  the  Son  all  love,  for  the  love  of  God 
and  of  Christ  for  sinners  is  here  represented 
as  the  same.  Still  as  God  manifests  his 
mercy  only  in  and  through  the  incarnate 
Redeemer,  so  he,  apart  from  Christ,  may  be 
regarded  as  the  impersonation  of  justice,  yea 
as  "a  consuming  fire."  Justice  demands  the 
sinner's  death  and  even  the  penitent  believer 
is  by  this  intercession  shown  to  be  both  weak 
and  unworthy,  and  in  himself  deserving  of 
condemnation.] 

35.  Who  shall  separate  us  from  the 
love  of  Christ?  [Meyer  finds  a  virtual 
answer  to  this  question  in  the  preceding  state- 
ment :  Christ  is  he  that  has  died,  etc.,  he  will 
never  cease  to  love.]  We  might  expect  the 
neuter,  what,  rather  than  '  who,'  here ;  since 


1  Mr.  Spurgeon  on  one  occasion,  as  reported  to  the 
writer  by  a  friend  who  was  present,  adduced  a  very 
touching  illustration  of  Christ's  love  and  his  readiness 
to  receive  the  coming  sinner.  While  quoting  a  hymn 
he  stopped  short  at  the  lines  wherein  Christ  was  en- 


treated to  open  his  arms,  etc.,  and  said,  suiting  his 
gestures  to  the  words:  "This  is  all  a  mistake.  The 
Saviour's  arms  are  open  ;  they  were  always  open  ,  they 
were  nailed  wide  open  on  the  cross." — (F.) 


Ch.  VIII.] 


ROMANS. 


213 


36  As  it  is  written,  For  thy  sake  we  are  killed  all  the 
day  long;  we  are  accounted  as  sheep  for  the  slaughter. 

;i7  Nay,  in  all  these  things  we  are  more  than  con- 
querors through  him  that  loved  us. 

3S  For  1  am  persuaded,  that  ueither  death,  nor  life. 


36  or  famine,  or  nakedness,  or  peril,  or  sword?    Even 
as  it  is  written. 

For  thy  sake  we  are  killed  all  the  day  long; 

We  were  accounted  as  sheep  for  the  slaughter. 
.37  Nay,  in  all  these  things  we  are  more  than  conquerors 
38  through  him  that  loved  us.  For  I  am  persuaded,  that 


the  enumeration  tliat  follows  is  not  of  ^jey'sons, 
but  of  states  and  things:  but  no  one  of  the 
tilings  enumerated  is  of  the  neuter  gender  in 
the  Greek  langujige;  a  circumstance  which 
materially  weakens  the  force  of  Calvin's 
otherwise  appropriate  comment:  "the  mas- 
culine pronoun  'who'  has  a  secret,  emphatic 
sense.  We  can  engage  in  combat  with  as 
many  champions  as  there  are  different  kinds 
of  temj)tations."  [The  form  of  this  pronoun 
is  the  same  for  both  genders.] 

What  are  we  to  understand  by  '  the  love  of 
Christ'  here?  Is  it  our  love  to  Christ?  oris 
it  Christ's  love  to  us?  The  nature  of  the 
things  mentioned,  as  having  apparently  a 
tendency  to  lead  us  to  forsake  Christ,  rather 
than  to  lead  Christ  to  forsake  us,  might  seem 
to  favor  the  former  view  :  but  the  demands 
of  the  argument,  the  language  of  ver.  38,  39, 
and  especially  the  last  clause  of  ver.  37,  are 
decisive  in  favor  of  the  latter  sense.  [Hence 
in  all  the  trials  and  afflictions  which  can  be 
laid  upon  Christ's  chosen  ones,  they  may  yet 
be  assured  of  his  unceasing  love.  Not  till 
Christ  forgets  the  garden  and  the  cross  will 
he  forget  to  love  those  for  whom  he  died  and 
wiiom  he  has  redeemed.  And  nothing  can 
happen  to  us  in  this  universe  of  God  which 
will  prevent  us  from  sharing  in  the  love  of 
hiin  who  with  the  gift  of  his  own  Son  will 
freely  give  us  all  things  besides.  Barnes  re- 
gards the  genitive  as  objective,  our  love  for 
Christ;  and  so  do  Lange  and  Forbes  in  part. 
Calvin,  Kiickert,  De  Wette,  make  the  love  of 
Christ  to  mean  our  sense  of  his  love,  but  this 
is  not  expressed  in  the  text.]  Observe  how 
climacteric  the  enumeration  is,  ending  with 
sword  as  the  instrument  and  emblem  of  the 
death  penalty  ["the  instrument  of  St.  Paul's 
own  future  martyrdom."  (Wordsworth.) 
On  the  words,  tribulation  and  distress,  see 
notes  on  2:  9.] 


But  these  trials  are  nothing  new  ;  they  are 
only  w+iat  befell  God's  saints  of  old.     (ueb.  ii : 

36-3t^. ) 

36.  As  it  is  written.  (ps.«:22.)  For  thy 
sake  we  are  killed  (or,  put  to  death)  all 
the  day  long  [continuously,  as  indicated  by 
the  present  tense  and  the  specification  of 
time:  ail  the  day  through].  We  are  daily  and 
hourlj'  exposing  ourselves  to  death.  [De 
Wette  :  "  many  of  us  fall  each  day  as  an  offer- 
ing of  our  faith."]  This  citation  is  specially 
pertinent  as  following  the  word  'sword,'  the 
extretne  peril,  with  which  the  preceding  list 
closes.  We  are  [literally:  were\  accounted 
(reckoned)  as  sheep  for  the  slaughter,  [Wi- 
er&Wy  :  sheep  of  slaughter.  Stuart:  "slaughter- 
sheep."  "There  is,"  says  Perowne,  "this 
retnarkable  difference  between  the  tone  of  the 
Psalmist  and  the  tone  of  the  apostle.  The 
former  cannot  understand  the  chastening,  and 
complains  that  God's  heavy  hand  has  been 
laid  without  cause  upon  his  people;  the  latter 
can  rejoice  in  persecution  also,  and  exclaim: 
'Na\-,  in  all  these  things  we  are  more  than 
conquerors.'  "] 

37.  Nay,  in  all  these  things.  But  [as 
opposed  to  a  suppressed  negative  answer]  'in 
all  these  things'  (enumerated  in  ver.  35).  We 
are  more  than  conquerors.  We  are  over 
victorious,  or,  as  Luther  says,  "we  far  over- 
come.'" Through  him  [Christ,  as  in  ver.  35 ; 
compare  Rev.  1  :  5]  that  loved  us.  It  is  he 
that  helps  us  and  enables  us  to  gain  this  more 
than  victory.  [Our  Almighty  Saviour's  power 
and  love  will  make  even  our  adversaries  to 
fight  on  our  side.] 

38,39.  For  I  am  persuaded.  'I  have 
adopted  and  still  retain  the  conviction;'  to 
analyze,  and  express  the  full  sense  of,  the 
perfect  tense  of  the  original  verb.  He  now 
takes  up  and  amplifies  the  'more  than  con- 
querors.'    That  neither  death,  nor  life,= — 


1  Ellicott  remarks  that  "the  apostle  seems  to  have 
had  a  marked  predilection"  for  compounds  with  uircp 
(over,  beyond).  Compare  5  :  20;  2  Cor.  7:4;  11  :  5; 
Phil.  2  :  9  ;  2  Thess.  1 :  3;  1  Tim.  1  :  14.  "  It  is  notice- 
able that  vnip  occurs  nearly  thrice  as  many  times  in  St. 
Paul's  epistles  and  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  as  in  the 


rest  of  the  New  Testament,  and  that,  with  a  few  excep- 
tions (Mark  7  :  37  ;  Luke  6:  38,  etc.),  the  compounds  of 
vnep  are  all  found  in  St.  Paul's  epistles."  A  few  of  the 
less  important  uncials,  D  E  F  G,  here  read  Sid  with  the 
accusative:  On  account  of  him  who  loved  us. — (F.) 
2  ovTt,  ovTt  (neither,  nor),  unlike  oufie,  ov6«  (see  9  :  16 ; 


214 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  VIII. 


nor  angels,  nor  principalities,  nor  powers,  nor  things 
present,  nor  things  to  come, 

39  Nor  height,  nor  depth,  nor  any  other  creature, 
shall  be  able  to  separate  us  from  the  love  of  God,  which 
is  in  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord. 


neither  death,  nor  life,  nor  angels,  nor  principalities, 
nor  things  present,  nor  things  to  come,  nor  powers, 
39  nor  height,  nordeptn,  nor  any  other  i  creature,  shall 
be  able  to  separate  us  from  the  love  of  God,  which  is 
in  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord. 


1  Or,  creation. 


the  two  most  general  states  in  which  men  can 
possibly  be.  Death  is  put  first,  perhaps  on 
account  of  ver.  36.  The  order  is  reversed  in 
1  Cor.  3:22.  Nor  angels,  nor  principali- 
ties. By  angels  must  be  understood  good 
angels,  because  the  word  is  never  used  of  evil 
angels  without  some  explanatory  addition. 
See  Matt.  25  :  41 ;  2  Cor.  12  :  7 ;  2  Peter  2:4; 
Jude  6.  [Soi:ne  think  that  1  Cor.  6:3;  Heb. 
2:16,  are  exceptions.]  That  an  attempt  on 
the  part  of  good  angels  to  separate  Christians 
from  the  love  of  God,  tliough  not  possible  to 
be  believed  is  allowable  to  be  conceived,  in 
a  hypothetical  way  is  proved  by  Gal.  1  :  8. 
There  are  some  other  passages  of  Scripture 
which  show  that  some  things  which  can  never 
occur  as  facts  may  lawfully  be  stated  as  sup- 
positions, and  even  argued  from  as  such. 
(Heb.  6:4-6.)  The  'principalities'  here  men- 
tioned are  doubtless  some  orders  of  celestial 
beings.  The  same  might  be  said  of  the  word 
'powers,'  if  this  were  its  proper  place;  but 
there  is  convincing  evidence  that  its  true 
position  is  after  the  two  following  clauses, 
between  'things  to  come'  and  'height,'  and 
therefore  it  is  doubtful  whether  it  refers  to 
personal  powers  or  to  powerful  influences  or 
tendencies.  "We  may  observe  here,"  says 
Calvin,  "  how  vile  all  things  ought  to  appear 
in  our  sight  when  compared  to  the  glory  of 
God,  since  we  are  allowed  to  abase  even  angels 
for  the  purpose  of  asserting  his  truth."  Nor 
things  present  [perfect  participle  from  ivi<r- 
TijMt],  nor  things  to  come.  Compare  1  Cor. 
3:22.  Nor  powers.  Besides  the  very  strongly 
preponderating  testimony  of  manuscripts, 
translations,  and  citations  in  favor  of  the 
position  of  the  word  'powers'  after  'things  to 
come,'  the  structure  of  the  whole  passage  is 
an  incidental  corroboration.  We  have  first 
two  pairs, — 'death'  and  'life,'  'angels'  and 
'principalities;'  and  then  two  triplets, — 
'thing  present,'  'things  to  come,'  and  'pow- 
ers;' 'height,'  'depth,'  and  'any  other  crea- 
ture; 'and  in  each  of  the  last  two  clauses  the 


antithetical  pair  is  followed  by  a  third  par- 
ticular of  a  more  general  character, — 'pow- 
ers,' 'any  other  creature.'  Nor  height,  nor 
depth.  Nothing  above  us,  nothing  below  us. 
Many  ingenious  and  elaborate  conceits  of 
learned  commentators  in  interpreting  these 
words  might  be  cited,  such  as  "heights  of 
bliss  and  depths  of  misery,"  "heights  of  pre- 
sumptuous speculation  and  depths  of  sin," 
"high  hopes  of  honor  and  profound  fears  of 
disgrace,"  etc.,  etc. ;  but  the  natural  simplicity 
of  such  an  enthusiastic  utterance  as  this  is 
incompatible  with  such  artificial  methods. 
Nor  any  other  creature,  or,  created  thing. 
A  broad  expression,  comprehending  whatever 
is  not  included  in  the  preceding  enumeration. 
[It  would  seem  that  the  above  enumeration 
of  visible  and  invisible  beings  and  powers 
throughout  the  universe,  including  all  changes 
of  time  and  all  distances  of  space,  might  em- 
brace all  things  which  the  mind  could  con- 
ceive of  as  being  able  to  separate  us  from 
God's  love;  but  lest  anything  might  suppos- 
edly be  omitted  froin  this  category,  the  apostle 
adds  this  all-comprehensive  statement — 'nor 
any  other  creature,'  not  anything  else,  differ- 
ing (tTepa.)  from  these,  which  has  been  (or 
which  may  be)  created.  "Well  may  we  in- 
quire: Who  shall  unclasp  those  everlasting 
arms  that  are  about  us?  Or:  What  shall 
cause  us  to  despond  or  faint?"  (N.  Colver, 
"  Lectures  on  Romans.")  "  Yet  it  should  be 
remembered  that  sin  can  do  what  all  the 
tribulations  of  earth  cannot;  it  can  separate 
us  from  God."  (Philippi.)  "God  having  once 
determined  the  reception  of  true  Christians 
into  his  kingdom,  all  that  he  brings  upon  them, 
even  tribulation  itself,  can  be  no  hindrance 
in  the  way  of  that,  provided  only  the  Chris- 
tian does  not  injure  himself."  (Tholuck.)] 
Shall  be  able  to  separate  us  from  the 
love  of  God,  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus  our 
Lord.  [Hence  the  safety  of  Christ's  sheep 
though  in  the  midst  of  wolves.  Compare 
John   10:28,  29.]      "The   love   of   Christ  is 


1  Thess.  2 :  3),  may  be  used,  as  here,  without  any  ante- 
cedent simple  negative.  The  same  is  true  of /n^Te,  /n^re 
as  compared  with  /otijSe.    See  6  :  12;  14  :  21.    Godet  re- 


marks that  "the  adversaries  who  rise  before  the  apos- 
tle's view  seem  to  advance  in  pairs." — (F.) 


Ch.  IX.] 


ROMANS. 


215 


notliing  else  than  the  love  of  God  himself,  I 
which  has  its  seat  in  Christ.  God  is  the  origi- 
nating fountain,  Clirist  the  constant  organ 
and  mediating  channel  of  one  and  the  same 
love.  "  (Meyer.)  In  ver.  31-33  God  is  the 
suhject;  at  ver.  34  the  subject  is  chanced  to 
Clirist.  And  now  in  ver.  39  it  is  again  the 
love  of  God,  but  "the  love  of  God  in  Christ 
Jesus  our  Lord."  This  transition  from  God 
to  Clirist  and  back  again,  so  common  in 
the  Scriptures,  is  among  the  strongest  proofs 
of  the  absolute  Deity  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Clirist. 

On  this  whole  passage  Erasmus  exclaims: 
"  What  did  Cicero  ever  say  more  eloquent 
than  tliis?"  [On  the  way  and  order  of  sal- 
vation thus  far  marked  out  by  the  apostle, 
Godet,  in  his  chapter  of  "Conclusions,"  thus 
remarks:  "The  first  gift  of  grace  which  the 
gospel  offers  to  man  is,  according  to  Paul,  the 
gift  of  his  justification,  without  any  other  con- 
dition than  that  which  every  one  may  fulfill 
at  once— faith.  This  first  act  done,  man  is 
free  from  his  guilt  in  relation  to  his  God;  no 
cloud  any  longer  troubles  his  relation  to  him  ; 
peace  takes  the  place  of  the  inward  unrest; 
and  in  this  state  of  inward  tranquillity  there 
ma^'  be  sown  the  fruit  of  righteousness — sanc- 
tification.  The  reconciled  man  becomes  open 
to  the  communication  of  the  Divine  Spirit. 
As  naturally  as  tliis  guest  must  withdraw  from 
a  condemned  heart,  so  necessarily  does  he 
come  to  dwell  in  the  man  whom  nothing  any 
longer  separates  from  God,  and  he  realizes 
within  him  Christ's  life  and  death  in  the 
measure  in  which  this  life  and  death  have 
been  apprehended  by  his  faith.  Finally,  to 
him  who  walks  in  this  way,  there  opens  up  in 
the  distance  a  new  gift,  the  renewing  of  his 
body  and  the  inheritance  of  glory,  through 
his  comj>lete  transformation  into  the  likeness 
of  the  glorified  Clirist.  What  clearer,  what 
simpler,  what  at  once  more  really  divine  and 
human,  than  this  order  of  salvation  traced  by 
the  apostle!  And  what  a  seal  has  not  the 
experience  of  ages  impressed  on  this  expo- 
sition contained  in  the  first  eight  chapters  of 
our  Epistle!  Let  not  him  who  desires  to  see 
such  a  work  accomplished  within  himself,  or 
who  proposes  to  carry  it  out  in  others, — eman- 
cipation from  guilt  and  victory  over  sin, — 
take  to  the  task  in  any  other  way,  if  he  would 
not  miserably  fail !  "] 


Ch.  9  :  [The  principal  aim  of  this  chapter 
is  to  show  that  God  makes  no  account  of 
human  claims  founded  on  a  merely  carnal 
descent  from  Abraham.  According  to  Phil- 
ippi,  it  shows  that  out  of  the  elect  nation 
there  is  an  election  of  grace,  and  that  "  not 
the  natural  but  the  spiritual  seed  of  Abraham 
is  destined  to  inherit  the  promise."  Tholuck 
says:  "We  have  to  specify  as  the  doctrinal 
import  of  9  :  1-29  :  God  has  the  right  to  admit 
into  the  Messianic  kingdom  without  regard 
to  human  claims;  of  9 :  liO-lO:  21:  if  Israel 
was  not  admitted,  the  fault  lies  in  its  unwill- 
ingness to  submit  to  the  way  marked  out  by 
God;  of  chapter  11:  the  hardness  which  God 
in  consequence  of  this  brought  upon  Israel 
turns,  however,  to  good,  in  that  it  helped  on 
the  admission  of  the  Gentiles;  and  in  the  end 
the  mass  of  the  Jews  shall  obtain  admission 
into  God's  kingdom."  See  also  the  general 
analysis  of  this  and  the  two  following  chap- 
ters at  1  :  16.  J 

The  discussion  which  occu))ies  this  chapter 
and  the  two  following  was  made  necessary' 
especially  on  account  of  the  views  of  two 
classes  of  persons:  1.  The  unbelieving  Jews, 
who  regarded  Paul  as  an  enemy  to  the  nation, 
and  a  traitor  to  the  religion  of  his  forefathers : 
2.  The  believing  Jew.*,  who  could  not  easily 
reconcile  the  unbelief  and  rejection  of  their 
countrymen  with  the  promises  of  the  Old 
Testament.  Compare  3:  3.  [In  this  section 
(altogether  too  important  to  be  termed,  as  by 
!  De  Wette,  an  "Appendix")  wherein  tho 
apostle  considers  the  hardening  and  falling 
away  of  the  Jews,  and  God's  choice  of  the 
Gentiles,  giving  them  thus,  in  the  words 
of  SchaflT,  "an  outline  of  a  philosophy  of 
church  history,"  he  expounds  at  some  length 
the  doctrines  of  the  divine  sovereignty  and  of 
election.  Hence  this  discussion,  which  con- 
tains some  things  hard  to  be  understood  and 
harder  to  be  received,  "seems,"  as  Olshausen 
remarks,  "  like  the  sixth  chapter  of  St.  John, 
calculated  for  the  express  purpose  of  sifting 
the  Church  of  Christ."  Philippi,  in  explain- 
ing the  reason  for  this  discussion,  says:  "Sal- 
vation was  originally  designed  for  every  one 
that  believcth,  'the  Jew  first.'  But  the  result 
hitherto  seemed  to  stand  in  express  contrast 
with  this  design,  and  so  far  from  corroborat- 
ing the  Jew  first,  rather  gave  the  impression 
that  God  had  broken  the  promise  given  to  his 


216 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  IX. 


CHAPTEK  IX. 


SAY  the  truth  in  Christ,  I  lie  not,  my  conscience 
also  bearing  uie  witness  in  the  Holy  Ghost, 


1  I  say  the  truth  in  Christ,  I  lie  not,  my  conscience 

2  bearing  witness  with  me  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  I 


covenant  people  and  rejected  his  chosen  nation 
of  Israel."  According  to  Godet,  Paul's  })ur- 
pose  was  to  solve  "the  greatest  enigma  of 
history  :  the  rejection  of  the  elect  people."  ^ 

1.  I  say  the  truth  in  Christ.  [Buttmann 
remarks  that  the  absence  cf  a  connective  par- 
ticle, as  at  the  beginning  of  this  verse,  serves 
to  indicate  the  commencement  of  a  new  sub- 
ject. See  also  10:  1;  13:  1.  Meyer  says  that 
the  sorrow  of  which  the  apostle  proceeds  to 
speak  "might  be  deemed  incredible  after  the 
joyous  triumph  which  had  just  been  exhibited. 
Hence  the  extremely  urgent  asseveration  with 
which  he  begins:  '  Truth  I  speak  in  Christ,  I 
lie  not.'  "]  This  double  sanction  of  the  truth 
which  he  was  about  to  utter,  first  positively 
and  then  negatively,  implies  not  only  his  own 
full  assurance  of  its  truth,  but  his  persuasion 
of  the  importance  of  the  like  assurance  on  the 
part  of  his  readers,  with  a  suggestion  of  the 
possible  lack  of  such  asstirance  on  their  part. 
The  tone  of  triumphant  joy  with  which  the 
preceding  chapter  closes,  though  in  no  wise 
inconsistent  with  the  very  opposite  emotion 
which  he  is  about  to  express,  yet  by  the  con- 
trast greatly  adds  to  the  significance  of  his 
emphatic  and  twofold  asseveration.  And  the 
solemnity  of  this  asseveration  is  confirmed,  on 
the  positive  side,  by  the  addition,  'in  Christ,' 
and  on  the  negative,  by  the  addition,  my 
conscience  also  bearing  me  witness — 
[giving  testimony  with  me — with  my  feelings 


of  assurance,  or  with  my  declaration]  in  the 
Holy  Ghost.  As  if  he. had  said,  "I  make 
no  hasty  or  extravagant  assertion  :  I  speak 
the  sober  truth,  as  a  Christian,  and  my  con- 
science, enlightened  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  bears 
me  witness."  So  much  pains  does  the  apostle 
take  to  assure  those  to  whom  he  has  been 
obliged  to  declare  unwelcome  truths,  of  his 
tender  regard  for  them.  [The  phrase,  'in 
Christ,'  expresses  "entire  intimacy  of  most 
real  fellowship," — defining  here,  according  to 
Ellicott,  "the  element  or  sphere  in  which  the 
declaration  is  made."  So  Winer,  p.  390, 
'''' sjieak  the  truth  in  Christ  (as  one  living  in 
Christ)."  Compare  2  Cor.  2:  17;  Ejih.  4: 
17;  1  Thess.  4:  1,  etc.  "  By  thus  sinking  his 
own  personality,  the  solemnity  of  the  apostle's 
declaration  is  greatly  enhanced."  See  Elli- 
cott on  Eph.  4:  17.  Some  regard  the  phrase 
in  the  light  of  an  oath,  but  this  would  require 
the  preposition  commonly  used  in  such  cases 
(Trpos)  with  the  genitive,  unless  a  verb  or 
adjective  were  expressed.  On  the  co-wit- 
nessing of  the  apostle's  conscience  'in  the 
Holy  Spirit,'  Meyer  thus  remarks:  "Paul 
knows  that  the  witness  of  his  conscience  is 
not  outside  the  Spirit  that  fills  him,  but  in 
that  Spirit."  "The  distinction  between  his 
own  declaration  and  that  of  his  conscience 
means  that  he  has  proved  his  feelings  in  re- 
gard to  his  people  by  the  light  of  conscience 
and  of  the  Spirit  of  God."     (Lange.)] 


1  The  apostle  need  not,  in  solving  this  "  enigma," 
have  occupied  so  many  pages,  nor  brought  forward  so 
prominently  the  sovereign  power  and  elective  purpose 
of  God  had  he  believed  in  the  semi-omnipotence  and 
arbitrariness  of  man's  free  will.  It  was  indeed  strange 
that  the  Jews  generally  should  have  rejected  the  Mes- 
siah .Tesus,  who  was  himself  a  Jew  according  to  the 
flesh,  and  that  the  Gentiles  should  so  readily  have  re- 
ceived a  salvation  which  was  "  from  the  Jews."  But 
all  the  apostle  needed  to  say,  on  the  above  supposition, 
was  that,  through  the  self-determining,  indomitable 
power  of  the  will,  the  Jews  for  various  reasons,  and  yet 
against  all  reason,  obstinately  refused  to  receive  the 
Son  of  David  as  their  king,  and  what  would  be  the 
final  result  of  this  rejection,  neither  he  nor  indeed  the 
(so-called)  Omniscient  One  himself,  was  at  all  able  to 
tell.  This,  of  course,  would  be  placing  man  first  and 
God  last,  or  rather  leaving  him  and  his  plan  and  pur- 


pose (or  indeed,  any  plan  and  purpose)  in  man's  history 
out  of  view.  What  some  men  mean  by  the  will's  free 
self-determination,  or  the  power  of  contrary  choice, 
would  render  any  "  philosophy  of  history  "  impossible. 
While,  however,  we  hold  that  man's  will  cannot  create 
motives  ad  libitum,  or  act  against  all  motives,  we  do 
believe  that  it  can  color  motives  and  give  them  force 
and  value.  Yea,  that  motives  are  rather  internal  than 
external  to  the  mind,  and  that  they  have  too  often  been 
regarded  as  outward  mechanical  forces,  acting  upon  the 
will  as  though  it  were  a  merely  passive  agent.  It  seems 
to  us  that  in  Edwards'  "  Dissertation  on  the  Freedom 
of  the  Will,"  motive  is,  at  times,  too  much  regarded  as 
something  objective  to,  and  separate  from  the  will,  or 
the  soul  willing.  The  will  is  an  active  agent,  giving 
force  and  color  to  motives,  and  choosing  from  among 
motives,  and  is  not  determined  or  moved,  like  the 
liands  of  a  clock,  simply  by  external  forces. — (F.) 


Ch.  IX.] 


ROMANS. 


217 


2  That  I  have  great  heaviness  and  continual  sorrow 
ill  iny  heart. 

■i  For  I  could  wish  that  n;yself  were  accursed  from 
Christ  lor  my  brethreu,  my  kiusmeu  according  to  the 
flesh: 


have  great  sorrow  and  unceasing  pain  in  luy  heart. 

3  For  1  could   i  wisli   that  I  myself  were   anathema 

I'rum  Christ  for  my  brethren's  sake,  my  kiusmea 


1  Or,  pray. 


2.  That  I  have  great  heaviness  and 
continual  sorrow.  Of  these  two  words  trans- 
lated '  lieaviness'  and  'sorrow,'  the  former  is 
the  word  usually  rendered  sorrow  (eleven 
times),  while  the  latter  is  a  stronger  term, 
which  occurs  only  here  and  in  1  Tim.  6:  10, 
and  is  translated  "anguish"  by  Alford,  Noyes, 
and  the  Bible  Union.  It  was  not  enough  to 
say  that  he  had  'sorrow,'  pain  (Avn-Tj),  but  he 
must  add,  'anguish'  {oSvvt})  ;  nor  was  that 
enough,  but  he  must  say  great  sorrow  and 
continual  anguish.  And  then  he  must  add 
what  is  much  more  wonderful  still.  [Accord- 
ing to  Paul's  teachings.  Christians  should 
always  be  jo^'ful  and  rejoicing,  and  the  apos- 
tle himself  was  doubtless,  not  a  jovial,  but  a 
joyful  and  happy  Christian — rejoicing  in  the 
Lord  greatly  and  always.  But  we  see  that 
the  happiness  he  felt  in  Christ's  service  was 
compatible  with  unceasing  heart  anguish  for 
the  conversion  of  his  fellowmen.  Yea,  the 
more  fully  he  experienced  the  blessedness  of 
his  heavenlj'  calling  in  Christ  Jesus,  the 
deeper,  it  would  seem,  was  his  sorrow  over 
the  unbelief  and  impenitence  of  his  country- 
men. Yet,  notwit.-tanding  all  his  heart 
anguish  for  souls,  we  cannot  suppose  that  he 
ever  for  an  instant  felt  that  he  had  greater 
love  for  sinners,  or  was  more  anxious  for 
their  conversion,  than  God  himself  who,  in 
one  sense,  had  power  to  convert  the  whole 
race  of  Israel  in  a  moment.  Nay,  his  soul 
would  have  shuddered  at  the  blasphemous 
thought,  even  while  he  might  be  unable  to 
explain  God's  forbearing  to  work  this  change 
in  the  hearts  of  men.  For  he  knew  the  love 
of  God  to  our  lost  race,  in  that  he  "spared 
not  his  own  Son";  he  knew  that  the  love  of 
Christ  for  perishing  sinners  surpassed  all 
human  knowledge  ;  and,  however  great  the 
mystery,  he  yet  knew  that  the  anxiety  of  his 


own  heart  was  caused  by  the  Spirit  of  God 
in  him,  making  intercession  for  Israel  with 
groanings  too  great  for  utterance  in  words. 
We  sometimes  have  great  sorrow  of  heart  on 
account  of  disappointments,  losses,  afflictions, 
death,  or  calamities  worse  than  dei.th,  but 
very  few  Christians,  we  fear,  have  any  such 
anguish  as  the  apostle  felt  for  the  conversion 
of  sinners.     Comjiare  2  Cor.  12:  15.] 

3.  Accursed  from  Christ — literally,  ana- 
tftema  from  Christ,  implj'ing  separation  from 
Christ  as  a  Saviour,  and  involving  the  alter- 
native of  perdition.  [For  the  use  of  the  term 
'anathema,'  see  Lev.  27:  28,  29,  in  the  LXX., 
and  compare  Acts  23:  14;  1  Cor.  12:  3;  16; 
22;  Gal.  1:  8,  9.]  But  did  Paul  really  wish 
this?  He  does  not  say  so.  He  says,  '  I  could 
wish  '  :  I  could,  if  it  were  lawful ;  I  could,  if 
it  were posaibie ;  I  could,  if  the  realization  of 
such  a  wish  could  procure  the  salvation  of  my 
countrj'men.'  No  one  is  competent  to  inter- 
pret, or  even  to  understand,  this  expression  of 
Paul,  except  .in  so  far  as  he  is  capable  of 
entering  by  sympathy  into  Paul's  inmost 
experience,  his  ardent  patriotism,  his  fervent 
desire  for  the  salvation  of  men.  To  bring  to 
the  explanation  of  such  an  utterance  as  this 
a  calm,  critical  disposition,  with  whatever 
amount  of  exegetical  learning,  is  to  bring  an 
utter  disqualification  to  apprehend  its  true 
meaning.  Tholuck  was  aware  of  this,  when 
he  said,  "  The  objections  against  this  expres- 
sion all  arise  from  a  cool  waj'  of  contemplating 
it,  which  altogether  forgets  what  a  loving 
heart,  in  the  fervor  of  its  passion,  is  capable 
of  uttering."  Bengel  was  aware  of  this,  when 
he  wrote,  "if  the  soul  be  not  far  advanced,  it 
is  incapable  of  comprehending  this,  even  as  a 
little  child  is  incapable  of  comprehending  the 
courage  of  warlike  heroes."  Michaelis  was 
unable  to  comprehend  this,  and  so  he  calls  it 


1  The  literal  rendering  of  this  verb  in  the  imperfect 
indicative  is :  '  I  was  wishing,  or  praying' — that  is,  if 
the  thing  wished  for  were  possible.  The  act  is  repre- 
sented as  unfinished,  an  obstacle  intervening.  (Alford.) 
Hence  the  verb  (ri<'>x6iiriv)  is  here  quasi-optative  and 
signifies:  '  I  could  wish,'  etc.  But  this  is  to  be  distin- 
guished from  TjvxoM'C  with  av,  for  this  would  probably 


mean  :  I  could  wmA  (but  T  will  not).  In  Acts  26:  29  we 
have  this  verb  in  the  optative  mood  with  av,  meaning: 
I  could  wish — that  is,  if  the  wish  were  allowable  (Butt- 
mann,  217),  or,  if  I  obeyed  the  impulse  of  my  own 
heart,  though  it  may  be  unavailing.  (Hackett.)  See 
Winer,  30.S,  283,  and  for  examples  similar  to  the  above, 
Acts  25 ;  22  ;  Gal.  4:  20.— <F.) 


218 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  IX. 


4  Who  are  Israelites;  to  whom  perlalnelh  the  adop- 
tion, and  the  glory,  aud  the  covenants,  and  the  giving 
of  the  law,  and  the  service  of  God,  and  the  promises  ; 


4  according  to  the  flesh:  who  are  Israelites;  whose 
is  the  adoption,  and  the  glory,  aud  the  covenants, 
and  the  giving  of  the  law,  and  the  service  of  God, 


"a  fanatic  prayer."'  We  must  notice  tlie 
empliasis  with  which  he  specifies  himself  here 
— an  empliasis  not  adequately  represented  in 
the  Common  Version  :  I  myself  in  contrast 
with  my  bretUren  [themselves  under  a  curse], 
my  kinsmen  according  to  the  flesh  >— and 
with  this  additional  thouglit,  '  even  I  myself , 
whom  you  suppose  to  be  so  ill  affected  toward 
you'  [or,  /  myself,  to  whom  the  love  and 
presence  of  Christ  would  be  a  heaven  for- 
ever.]^ Then  he  proceeds  to  mention  other 
reasons,  besides  their  natural  kinship,  for  his 
glowing  afiection  for  them  —  namely,  their 
peculiar  national  privileges  and  historic 
glories. 

[The  above  prayer  of  the  apostle  is  kindred 
in  spirit  to  that  of  Moses,  when  he  said :  "  but 
if  not,  blot  me,  I  pray  thee,  out  of  thy  book." 
(Exod.32: 32.)  \n  this  prayer  a  Hopkins  could 
find  a  text  for  "disinterested  benevolence," 
and  would  infer  that  if  a  religious  person 
"could  know  that  God  designed,  for  his  own 
glory  and  the  general  good,  to  cast  him  into 
endlrss  destruction,  this  would  not  make  him 
cease  to  approve  of  his  character.  He  would 
continue  to  be  a  friend  of  God  and  to  be 
pleased  with  his  moral  perfections."  See 
quotation  and  comments  in  Lange.  In  our 
view  a  "friend  of  God"  could  not  suffer  the 
"eternal  destruction,"  which  will  be  the  final 
doom  of  those  who  know  not  God  and  obey 
not  the  gospel  of  our  Lord  Jesus.     (2Thess.  i: 

8,  9,  Revised  Version.)       Even  if  it  WCrC  pOSSiblc  that 

the  apostle  could  be  accursed  and  separated 
from  the  enjoj-ment  of  Christ  forever,  though 
his  loss  and  suffering  on  this  account  would 
be  unspeakably  great,  we  do  not  suppose  that 
he  would  have  exactly  all  the  feelings  and 
suffer  precisely  all  the  misery  of  the  lost,  who 
willfully  and  through  enmity  reject  Christ. 
Only  One  could  be  made  a  curse  for  us,  and 
wecannot  believe  that  he,  our  blessed  Saviour, 
could  have  actually  experienced  all  the  emo- 
tions and  all  the  sufferings  of  the  ungodly  in 
the  world  of  woe.  "Who  can  suppose  that 
either  our  Lord,  or  his  chiefest  apostle,  in 
consenting  to  become  anathema  for  sinners, 


was  chargeable  with  the  greatest  of  all  absur- 
dities "a  holy  willingness  to  be  unholy"? 
The  love  which  could  lead  Paul  to  wish  under 
a  certain  supposition  to  be  devoted  to  de- 
struction or  everlasting  severance  from  Christ 
for  (not  necessarily,  in  jdace  of)  his  Jewish 
kinsmen,  flowed  only  from  his  love  to  Jesus, 
and  would  of  itself,  as  Prof.  Riddle  remarks, 
"change  hell  to  heaven."  Olshausen,  we 
observe,  takes  the  preposition  (i-n-tp,  for,  to  the 
advantage  of)  in  the  sense  of,  instead  of  (avri), 
and,  though  in  his  views  inclined  somewhat 
to  restorationism,  yet  remarks:  "The  whole 
passage  loses  its  meaning  and  its  deep  earnest- 
ness if  we  suppose  that  Paul  was  really  aware 
that  every  single  individual  of  the  Jewish 
nation,  indeed  all  mankind,  would  in  the  end 
be  blessed.  These  words,  therefore,  indirectly 
contain  a  strong  proof  of  his  conviction  that 
there  is  a  state  of  eternal  damnation,  as  2 
Thess.  1:  8,  9,  expressly  declares."] 

4.  Who  is  here  the  compound  relative. 
See  1 :  25.  Israelites.  This  was  their  most 
sacred  and  honorable  name.  The  name  Israel 
was  given  to  Jacob  by  God  himself  on  a 
memorable  occasion.  (Gen.  32:28.)  And  the 
name  derived  from  it,  which  he  prayed  to 
have  named  upon  the  two  sons  of  Joseph 
(Gen.  48:16),  was  the  most  distinguished  of  the 
titles  by  which  his  posterity  were  designated. 
See  John  1  :  47;  Rom.  11  :  1;  2  Cor.  11  :  22. 
Next,  after  this  heaven-bestowed  name,  the 
apostle  mentions  six  of  their  peculiar  and 
sacred  distinctions  as  a  people.  To  whom 
pertaineth — or,  more  briefly  and  literally, 
whose  (are) — the  adoption — that  is,  in  a 
national  sense,  in  distinction  from  all  other 

peopl  eS    ( Exod.  4  :  22,  23  ;   Deut.  14:1;   32  :  6 ;  Isa.  1:2;   Jer. 

.11: 9);  a  great  privilege,  but  not  to  be  com- 
pared to  the  personal  adoption,  the  preroga- 
ti.ve  of  believers  in  Christ.  And  the  glory. 
This  probably  refers  to  the  bright  cloud  which, 
as  a  symbol  of  Jehovah's  presence,  went  be- 
fore them  when  thej'  went  up  out  of  Egypt 
(Exod.  13:21),  abode  upon  IMount  Sinai  (Ex.d. 
24:16),  and  afterward  rested  on  the  tabernacle 
(Exod.  40:34, 35 )  [and  at  timcs  on  the  mercy  seat 


1  "  Christ  was  made  a  ciirse  for  us  because  we  were 
his  kinsmen"    (Bengel.) — (F.) 

2  "  Subject  of  the  infinitive,  /  myself,  same  as  that  of 


(he  finite  verb:  hence  in  the  nominative  "  (Boise)  rather 
tha"n  in  the  accusative. — (F.) 


Ch.  IX.] 


ROMANS. 


219 


5  Whose  are.  tlie  fathers,  and  of  whom  as  concerning 
the  flesli  Christ  came,  who  is  over  uU,  Ciod  blessed  fur- 
ever.    Amen. 


5  and   the  promises;   whose  are   the  fatliers,  and  of 
wliom  is  (Jlirist  as  concerning  the  liesh,  ■  who  is  over 

6  all,  God  blessed  2  for  ever.    Amen.    But  it  is  not  as 


1  Ot,  flesh  :  he  who  i»  aver  all,  God,  be  hleeted  for  ever 2  Gr.  unto  the  age: 


of  tlie  ark  (Lev.  16:2)].  This  is  what  the  Rab- 
bins call  the  Shekiiiah,  a  word  derived  from 
the  Hebrew  verb  which  nieans  to  settle  down 
or  re.st  upon,  as  the  cloud  did  upon  the  taber- 
nacle. And  the  covenants  [called  in  Eph. 
2:12,  the  covenants  of  promise].  The  plural 
form  of  this  word,  which  is  unu.sual,  probably 
refers  to  the  various  renewals  of  the  gracious 
engagement  whicii  God  made  first  with  Abra- 
ham (oeu.  15:18;  17:2, 4, 7-10),  and  afterward  re- 
newed   to    Isaac    (Gen.  26:24),   tO    JaCOb    (Gen.  28 : 

i:'.  15),  and  to  the  whole  people  (Exod.  2*:7, 8). 
[The  codices  B  D  E  F  G,  with  the  Vulgate  and 
several  Fathers,  read — the  covenant,  which, 
however,  is  adopted  by  no  critical  editors  save 
Lachmann.]  And  the  giving  of  the  law. 
This  refers  to  the  transactions  at  Mount  Sinai, 
recorded  with  such  particularity  in  Exodus, 
chapters  19-23.  [Some— as  De  Wette,  Fritz- 
sche,  and  others — make  this  law-giving  equiv- 
alent to  the  law  itself  or  its  contents.  But  the 
giving  of  the  law  was  to  the  Jews  a  greater 
honor  than  its  mere  possession,  since  it  might 
have  been  received  by  them  from  other  na- 
tions.] And  the  service  of  (iod.  The 
words  'of  God'  are  not  in  the  original,  but 
the  word  translated  'service'  is  sufficiently 
definite  of  itself,  referring  always  to  religious 
service,  and  including  here  the  entire  system 
of  national  worship  as  prescribed  by  the  Lord 
and  performed  in  the  tabernacle  and  in  the 
temple.  [Compare  Heb.  9:1.  The  "Five 
Clergymen"  render  it:  Service  of  the  sanct- 
uary.] And  the  promises.  [See  15:8.] 
No  doubt  the  Messianic  'promises,'  or  those 
which  relate  to  Christ  and  his  kingdom,  are 
especially  meant."  ["  '  Promises'  (errayvcAiat)  is 
intentionally  put  at  the  end,  in  order  that 
now, — after  mention  of  the  fathers  to  whom, 
in  the  first  instance,  the  promises  were  given, 
— the  Promised  One  him^self  maj'  follow." 
(Meyer.)] 
5.  The  fathers.    This  term   is  especially 


applied  to  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob  (Kxod. 

3:13,  15;  4:5;  Aci«3:13;  7:32),  but  is  nOt  tO  be  limited 

to  them  exclusively  any  more  than  the  term 
patriarch.  (Acts  2:29;  7 : 8, 9.)  Of  whom — that 
is,  of  the  Jews.  The  word  '  whom'  refers,  not 
to  the  word  '  fathers,'  but  back  to  the  general 
subject  of  the  preceding  description,  the  same 
as  the  word  '  who'  at  the  beginning  of  ver.  4. 
As  concerning  the  flesh  Christ  came. 
As  to  his  human  nature,  which  plainly  im- 
plies that  he  had  also  a  higher  nature,  how 
much  higher  the  apostle  immediat<ly  tells  us 
in  the  most  decisive  terms!  Who  is  over  all^ 
God  blessed  for  ever.  [Or,  'Who  is  God 
over  all.'  This  last  rendering  is  equally  ad- 
missible as  the  other,  and  is  preferred  by 
Mejeri — that  is,  in  case  the  sentence  must  be 
referred  to  Christ.  Some,  however,  who  hold 
that  Christ  is  Lord  of  all,  and  that  God,  with- 
out the  article  (9eds),  may  be  applied  to  him, 
as  here  and  in  John  1  :  1,  as  well  as  in  John 
1 :  18,  according  to  some  of  the  oldest  and  best 
manuscripts,  yet  liesitate  to  say  that  he  is 
'God  overall.'  But  'God'  (eeos),  though  with- 
out the  article,  is  often  used  in  the  New 
Testament  to  denote  the  Supreme  Deity,  and 
certainlj'  the  religion  of  the  Bible  knows  no 
secondary,  minor  God.  Hence,  if  Christ  be 
God  at  all,  he  must  be  'God  over  all.'  "The 
absence  of  the  article,"  says  Philippi,  "proves 
nothing,  its  use  being  here  impossible,  because 
God  (Oeot)  is  predicate,  and  the  design  is  simply 
to  aflSrm  the  deity  of  Christ  {6i6v  eXvai).  No 
doubt  we  might  say,  our  God,  Jesus  Christ 
[using  the  article],  but  not,  Christ  is  (6  »«o?) 
the  God,  because  he,  whose  Godhead  is  meant 
to  be  asserted,  cannot  be  described  as  'the 
God'  already  known."]  This  emphatic  asser- 
tion of  the  supreme  deity  of  our  Lord  seems 
too  plain  to  admit  of  controver.sy.  The  only 
way  in  which  its  force  can  with  an^'  ))lausi- 
bility  be  evaded  is  by  placing  a  period  imme- 
diately before  this  clause,  thus  separating  it 


1  This  dist  infTuishcd  commentator,  whose  "  grammati- 
cal accuracy  and  logical  keenness"  Biblical  scholars  will 
ever  delight  to  acknowledge,  and  into  whose  exegetical 
labors  they  will  not  fail  to  enter,  held  that  Christ,  in 
accordance  with  8cripinre  teaching,  had  an  eternal  jire- 
existent  and  God-equal  being  and  nature;  that  in  him 


dwells  the  divine  essence  undivided  and  in  its  whole 
fullness,  yet  that  ahsolute  deity  belongs  only  to  the 
Father.  Hence  he  believed  in  a  subordination  Trinity. 
But  would  it  not  appear  from  this  representation  as 
though  some  one  had  contradicted  himself? — (F.) 


220 


KOMANS. 


[Ch.  IX. 


from  tlie  name  of  Christ  and  making  it  a 
simple  doxolngy  to  God  the  Father — "blessed 
forever  be  God,  who  is  over  all."  The  clauses 
are  divided  in  this  waj'  by  Lachmann,  Tisch- 
endorf,  and  Meyer  ;i  not,  however,  with  the 
view  of  weakening  the  proof  of  Christ's  divine 
nature,  but  on  the  ground  that  Paul  never 
expressly  applies  the  name  God  to  Christ. 
But  conceding  for  the  moment  the  truth  of 
that  assertion,  why  should  not  Paul  make 
such  direct  application  of  the  term  in  one  case 
only,  as  Meyer  admits  that  John  has  done  in 
the  first  verse  of  his  Gospel?  But  we  do  not 
admit  that  this  is  the  only  instance  in  which 
Paul  applies  the  term  'God'  to  Christ.  On 
the  contrary,  we  maintain  that  he  calls  Christ 
'God'  expressly  in  Titus  1:3  and  2:13,  and 
by  fair  implication  also  in  Phil.  2  :  6  and  Col. 
2:9.  In  fact,  the  whole  tenor  of  the  passage, 
interpreted  as  a  doxology  to  Christ  as  God, 
agrees  with  Paul's  way  of  introducing  abrupt 
doxologies.  See  Rom.  1  :  25;  2  Cor.  11  :  31 ; 
2  Tim.  4 :  18.  Meyer  admits  that  this  last  is 
an  undoubted  instance  of  a  doxology  to 
Christ.  We  adhere  to  the  simplest  and  most 
natural  punctuation  and  explanation  of  the 
verse,  therefore,  and  regard  it  as  a  direct 
affirmation  of  the  Godhead  of  Christ,  parallel 
with  John  1  :  1  and  20  :  28.  The  still  more 
artificial  punctuation,  advocated  by  Erasmus 
and  followed  by  Locke  and  Clarke,  which 
places  a  period  after  the  word  'all,'  seems 
hardly  to  require  any  further  notice.  [The 
neuter  article  (t6)  before  'according  to  the 
flesh'  (icara  o-op/ca)  puts  the  phrase  in  the  ac- 
cusative case,  akin,  perhaps,  to  the  accusative 
of  limitation  or  closer  specification.  (Butt- 
mann,  152;  Winer,  230.)  See  als.>  12:18. 
Alford  sees  in  its  use  here  an  implication  that 


Christ  was  not  entirely  sprung  from  the  Jews, 
but  that  he  had  a  higher  nature.  Meyer  also 
says  that  "such  prepositional  definitions  with 
the  accusative  of  the  article  certainly  denote 
a  complete  contrast,  which  is  either  expressly 
stated,  as  in  12  :  5,  or  may  be  self-evident  from 
the  context,  as  1:15;  12:18."  If  the  whole 
clause  after  the  word  'flesh'  is  a  doxology  to 
God  the  Father,  the  masculine  article  (o) 
belongs  to  '  God'  (Seos).  Compare  1  Cor.  3  :  7. 
And  a  literal  translation  of  the  whole  would 
be:  "The  existing  over-all  God  (be)  blessed 
unto  the  ages!  "  "  The  existing"  (6  liv),  if  it 
be  referred  to  Christ,  leaves  'God'  (fleos)  with- 
out the  article,  and  is  equivalent  to  'who  is' 
(6s  «Vti),  or,  according  to  Bishop  Wordsworth, 
"who  is  existing."  These  same  words  are 
translated  '  which  is,'  or,  '  who  is,'  in  John  1 : 
18 ;  3  :  13 ;  2  Cor.  11  :  31 ;  and  '  who  was '  in 
John  12 :  17.  Indeed,  in  2  Cor.  11  :  31  we  have 
not  only  the  same  construction,  but,  for  the 
most  part,  the  very  words  of  our  clause,  and 
the  passage  is  rendered:  "God  the  Father 
.  .  .  who  is  blessed  unto  the  ages!  "  (Revised 
Version,  margin.)  So  that  both  here  and  in 
Rom.  1 :  25,  the  only  two  places  besides  our 
passage  where  Paul  uses  the  phrase  "blessed 
unto  the  ages!"  the  reference  is  to  a  preced- 
ing subject.  Since,  therefore,  there  is  no 
transition  particle  (like  Se  in  1  Tim.  1  :  17)  to 
indicate  a  change  of  subject  in  our  passage, 
and  since  tlie  participle,  '  being'  or  'existing' 
(u^),  appears  somewhat  superfluous  and  awk- 
ward if  a  doxology  to  God  be  supposed  here, 
we  naturally  and  necessarily,  grammar  and 
usage  being  taken  into  account,  refer  the 
whole  clause  to  the  preceding  subject — 
Christ.2  It  is  objected  that  elsewhere  in  the 
genuinely  apostolical  writings  we  do  net  find 


1  See  foot-note,  page  219. 

2  In  the  Appendix  to  the  "  Introduction  of  the  Greek 
New  Testament,"  by  Westcott  and  Hort,  the  former  re- 
marks that  "the  juxtaposition  of  6  Xpio-ros  and  6  Siv 
seems  to  make  a  change  of  subject  improbable."  Dr. 
Weiss,  in  his  "  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment," Vol.  I.,  p.  393,  says  that  "  the  explanation  which 
is  most  natural,  and  most  in  conforniily  with  tlie  lan- 
guage and  the  context,  is  that  which  makes  it  refer  to 
Christ,  and  not  to  God."  But  Alford,  with  much  more 
boldness,  affirms  that  the  rendering  given  by  our  Com- 
mon and  Revised  Versions  is  "  not  only  that  most 
agreeable  to  the  usage  of  the  apostle,  bill  tlie  only  one 
admissible  by  the  rules  of  grammar  and  arrangement." 
Another  reason  for  referring  this  clause  to  Christ  is 


that,  if  this  be  a  doxology  to  God  the  Father,  the  word 
'blessed'  {evKoyriTo^  or  euAoyij/u-eVos),  where  no  copula 
is  expressed  (compare  3  Kints  10  :  9 ;  2  Chron.  9:8;  Job 
1 :  21 ;  Ps.  112  :  2,  Septuagint  Version,  where  the  copula 
is  used),  should,  by  the  invariable  usage  of  the  LXX. 
and  of  the  New  Testament,  occupy  the  first  place.  See 
with  «iAovr)To?,  Luke  1  :  68;  2  Cor.  1:3;  Eph.  1 :3;  1 
Peter  1:3;  and  with  euAo-yjj/u.ei'o?,  Matt.  21:9;  23  :  39  ; 
Mark  11:9;  Luke  13:35;  19:38,  etc.  Liddon,  in  his 
Bampton  Lectures,  a  most  excellent  treatise  on  "  Our 
Lord's  Supreme  Divinity,"  says:  "There  are  about 
forty  places  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  five  in  the  New, 
in  which  the  formula  of  doxology  occurs,  and  in  every 
case  tht  arrangement  is  the  same:  Blessed  be  the  God, 
etc. — in  other  words,  the  predicate  'blessed'  always 


Ch.  IX.] 


ROMANS. 


221 


any  doxology  to  Christ  in  the  usual  form. 
Both  De  Wette  and  Meyer  concede  that  2 
Tim.  4:  18  has  such  a  do.vology,  "but  this," 
says  Meyor,  "  is  just  one  of  the  traces  of  post- 
apostolical  composition."  And  so  the  doxolo- 
gies  to  Christ  found  in  Heb.  13:21;  2  Peter 
3:18;  Rev.  1:6;  5:12,  etc.,  rest  under  the 
same  ban  of  discredit.  Meyer  also  denies  that 
the  do.xologies  in  Rom.  16:27:  1  Peter  4: 11, 
refer  to  Christ;  but  denial  is  not  always  proof 
Even  if  it  be  conceded  tiiat  formal  do.vologies 
to  Christ  are  wanting  in  Paul's  epistles,  no 
one,  we  suppose,  would  account  for  this  want 
on  the  ground  that  the  apostle  could  not 
conscientiously  ascribe  praise  and  glory  and 
blessing  to  his  adorable  Redeemer.  Besides, 
as  Dr.  Gifford  in  the  "Bible  Commentary" 
remarks,  Meyer's  objection  is  "wide  of  the 
mark,"  inasmuch  as  the  clause  before  us,  if 
applied  to  Christ,  "is  not  a  doxology  at  all," 
but  is  a  simple  assertion  respecting  the  subject 
of  the  sentence  in  a  manner  wholly  similar 
to  1:25;  2  Cor.  11:31,  the  only  two  places 
besides  this  in  Paul's  writings  where  the 
expression  'blessed  unto  the  ages'  (Revised 
Version,  margin)  is  found.  "Were  it  a  doubt- 
ful matter,  also,  whether  Paul  has  elsewhere 
given  the  name  of  God  to  the  Lord  and 
Saviour  of  the  NewTe.stament,  yet,  asPhilippi 
remarks, "he  describes  him  indirectly  as  God, 
and  therefore  in  any  case  thought  of  him  as 
God,  even  if  he  did  not  call  him  so  directly. 
For  to  whom  belong  divine  attributes— like 
eternity  (Coi.  i :  is,  i?)  ;  omnipresence  (Eph.  i:23; 
4:10);  nnd  grace  (Horn.  1:7;  1  Cor.  1:3, etc.)  ;  divine 
works,  like  the  creation  and  preservation  of 
the  world  (ooi.  i:i6,  n) ;  and  the  dispensing  of 
judgment  (2  cnr.5:io;  2Thess.i:7-io) ;  and  diviue 
worship(R'>n^.io:i3:Phii.2:io,  II) — is  himsclf  God." 
On  the  question  whether  the  naming  of  Christ 
as  God  would  not  be  inconsistent  with  Pauline 
usage,   Prof   Cremer   observes   in   substance 


that  the  transition  from  the  Son  of  God  to 
God  is  a  very  easy  one  (JoUn  io:i3.38),  and  that 
Paul,  who  never  speaks  of  Christ  as  the  Son 
of  man,  should  call  him  man  (iTim.2:5;  Rom.s: 
i5,etc.),  might  likewise  ajipear  to  be  an  incon- 
sistency'. But  as  "the  man,  Christ  Jesus,"  is 
inferred  from  "the  Son  of  man,"  so  with 
equal  justice  we  might  infer  the  "God, 
Christ,"  from  th^"Son  of  God."  Paul,  in 
common  with  the  earliest  Christian  disciples, 
worshiped  Clirist  as  divine,  as  One  equal  with 
God,  in  whom  dwelt  all  the  fullness  of  deity, 
or  the  divine  essence,  bodily,  and  was  accus- 
tomed to  direct  prayer  and  supplication  to 
him  as  One  able  to  forgive  and  save.  See 
Acts  22:16,  19;  2  Cor.  12:8,  9.  Compare 
Rom.  10:12;  Acts  2 :  21 ;  7:59;  9:14,21;  1 
Cor.  1:2;  2  Tim.  2:22.  (See  further  at  10: 
12.)  In  the  light,  therefore,  of  Scripture 
teaching,  we  need  not  hesitate  to  affirm  that 
Christ  is  both  Lord  of  all  and  God  over  all, 
and  is  blessed  forevermore.  Meyer  concedes 
that  the  language  of  our  text,  as  far  as  the 
construction  of  words  is  concerned,  may  be 
applied  to  Christ,  and  it  is  a  noteworthy  fact 
that  all  the  Fathers  of  the  early  Church — 
IrcnaBus,  Tertullian,  Origen,  Cyprian,  Hip- 
polj'tus,  Athanasius,*  Basil,  Gregory  of  Nyssa, 
Ambrose,  Epiphanius,  Chrysostom,  Theodore 
of  Mopsuestia,  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  Theodo- 
ret,  Theophylact,  Jerome,  Augustine,  (Ecu- 
menius,  etc.— did  apply  it  to  Christ.  Of  the 
modern  Germans  who  advocate  the  same  view, 
Meyer  mentions  "Michaelis,  Koppo,  Tiioluck 
Flatt,  Klee,  Usteri,  Benecke,  Olshausen,  Niel- 
sen, Reithmayer,  Maier,  Beck,  Philippi,  Bis- 
ping.  Gess,  Krummacher,  Jatho,  Hahn,  Tho- 
masius,  Ebrard,  Ritschl,  Hofmann,  Weiss, 
Delitzsch,  and  others.''  Fritzsche,  Winer, 
Ewald,  and  many  others  take  the  opposite 
view. 
Two  other  principal  points  in  favor  of  the 


precedes  the  subject."  Ps.  68 :  19  (Septungint  Version, 
67  :  19)  seems  to  lie  an  exception.  Yet  the  text  here  is 
probably  corrupt,  there  being  nothing  in  the  Hebrew 
to  correspond  with  the  first  "blessed."  Perhaps  the 
copula  "is,"  rather  than  the  iniperatiTe,  should  be 
understood  bore.  Farrar  and  others,  however,  think 
it  likely  that  Paul  may  have  had  the  doxology  of  tliis 
Psalm  in  mind,  and  they  find  in  this  additional  evi- 
dence that  in  our  passage  he  calls  Christ  blessed,  since 
in  Eph.  4  :  s  he  quotes  the  immediately  preceding  verse 
nnd  applies  it  directly  to  Christ.  It  is,  indeed,  objected 
that  tvAoyijTis  is  nowhere  else  applied  to  Christ,  but 


only  cvAoyqfic'fot,  as  in  Matt.  21 :  9;  23:  39,  and  parallel 
passages,  quoted  above.  Rut  there  is  no  essential  differ- 
ence in  the  meaning  of  the  word.s,  and  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment (LXX.)  we  find  tvAoyTjfXfi-o?  as  applied  to  God  (1 
Cbron.  Ifi  :  M ;  2  Chron..9  :  « ;  Ezek.  3 :  12),  and  evAoyrjTos 
applied  to  man  (versus  Ellicott  on  Eph.  1:3;  see  Dent. 
7:14;  Ruth  2:20;  1  Sam.  15 :  13), and  all  these  examples 
have  the  same  Hebrew  word  in  the  original. — (F.) 

1  Meyer  is  mistaken,  we  think,  when  he  says:  "In 
the  Arian  controversies  our  pas.sage  was  not  made  use 
of,"  for  .\tlianasius,  the  so-called  "father  of  ortho- 
doxy," did  thus  use  it.— (F.)  ' 


222 


EOMANS. 


[Ch.  IX. 


"ecclesiastical  interpretation"  of  this  passage 
remain  to  be  noticed.  I.  A  doxology  to  God 
the  Father  is  here  wholly  inappropriate. 
Paul,  indeed,  mentions  several  blessings  en- 
joyed by  the  Jews,  j'et  he  does  not  expressly 
specify  them  as  gifts  from  God,  and  it  was  the 
tliought  of  their  being  neglected  or  abused 
whicli  now  filled  his  soul  with  anguish.  Who 
would  expect  from  the  apostle,  in  such  a  state 
of  mind  as  this,  an  outburst  of  gratitude  to 
God  in  view  of  his  abused  mercies?  The 
proper  place  for  a  heartfelt  doxology  is  just 
where  Paul  puts  it— namely,  at  the  end  of  the 
eleventh  chapter,  where  he  leaves  the  elder 
brother,  the  self-righteous  Jewish  legalist,  and 
th(3  younger  brother,  the  Gentile  prodigal, 
both  lovingly  reunited  in  their  heavenly 
Father's  house.  On  the  otlier  hand,  an  as- 
cription of  praise  to  Christ  is  here  especially 
suitable,  in  view  of  his  being  set  at  nought  by 
the  Jews,  and  is  exactly  in  the  line  of  Paul's 
method,  as  indicated  in  1 :  25,  where,  in  con- 
trast with  the  dishonor  heaped  upon  God  by 
the  Gentiles,  the  afBrmation  is  made  that  he 
'is  blessed  for  ever.'  Dorner,  in  defense  of 
this,  "the  most  probable  exposition,"  says: 
"A  doxology  to  God  would  not  fit  in  with  the 
anguish  at  Israel's  rejection,  to  which  Paul 
gives  utterance  in  ver.  1-5;  on  the  other  hand, 
the  words,  referred  to  Christ,  whom  Israel 
rejected  in  spite  of  his  dignity,  give  a  reason 
for  this  anguish.  The  continuation  also  of  the 
sentence  (ver. 6)  with  the  conjunction  (Se)  does 
not  suit  a  doxology  to  God,  but  to  Christ." 
("System  of  Christian  Doctrine,''  Vol.  III., 
p.  175. )  II.  We  should  naturally  expect,  as  an 
antithesis  to  '  as  to  the  flesh  '  (Kara  adpKa),  some 
reference  (as  in  1 :  3,  4,  and  elsewhere  in  the 
Scriptures)  to  the  higher  nature  of  Christ;^ 
while,  on  the  contrary,  a  doxologj'  to  God, 
besides  being  particularly  unsuited  to  the  con- 
text, would,  as  De  Wette  acknowledges,  put 
Christ  almost  wholly  into  the  shade.     Indeed, 


we  may  say  with  Philippi  that  the  phrase 
'according  to  the  flesh'  (icara  <rdpKa)  is  intro- 
duced merely  for  the  sake  of  the  following  con- 
trast: 'Who  is  God  over  all.' ^  DeWette,  who 
rejects  the  usual  interpretation,  thus  sums  up 
his  views  of  this  passage:  "I  especially  hesi- 
tate at  this,  that  [by  viewing  the  whole  clause 
as  a  doxology  to  God]  not  only  nothing  fol- 
lows which,  serving  as  a  counterpoise  to  'ac- 
cording to  the  flesh'  (Kara  cropxa),  sets  forth 
Christ  in  his  higher  nature,  but,  as  if  to  place 
him  directly  in  the  shade,  God  is  designated 
as  the  One  who  is  over  all,  without  any  special 
reason  for  such  designation."  After  mention- 
ing Erasmus'  proposal  to  put  a  period  after 
'all,'  as  in  Codex  71,  he  adds:  "We  have  here, 
to  be  sure,  the  desired  contrast,  since  Christ 
would  be  described  as  One  who  is  over  all 
(namely,  the  patriarchs),  yet  for  the  following 
doxology  to  God  there  certainly  appears  to 
be  but  very  little  reason;  the  absence  of  the 
article  before  the  word  God  is  surprising,  and 
one  would  expect  more  justly  than  before  that 
blessed  (euAo-yrjTO!)  should  precede.  .  .  .  Since 
no  explanation  wholly  satisfies,  another  read- 
ing were  desirable."  But  as  concerns  this 
passage  there  is  no  variation  in  the  manu- 
scripts, and  we  are  satisfied  with  the  reading 
as  it  is.] 

The  apostle  now  proceeds  to  vindicate  God' s 
truth  and  justice  in  the  rejection  of  the  Jews. 

6.  The  first  clause  is  elliptical:  the  com- 
plete expression  of  the  verse  would  be:  'the 
case  is  not  as  though  the  word  of  God — (that 
is,  the  promise  of  special  blessing  to  Abraham 
and  his  seed,  of  which  the  chief  part  was  sal- 
vation through  the  ilessiah),  hath  taken  no 
eff"ect,  or  in  other  words,  failed  of  its  fulfill- 
ment.' [Others  fill  out  the  ellipsis  thus:  (I 
say)  not  such  a  thing  as  that  the  word  of  God 
has  come  to  nought.  The  verb  strictly  means 
to  fall  from,  hence  to  fall  down  or  through — 
that  is,  fail  of  accomplishment.]     It  seemed 


1  It  has  been  objected  that  as  it  is  we  have  no  direct 
contrast  to  'according  to  the  flesh'  (^ko-to.  a6.p<a),  but 
that  a  proper  antithesis  would  require  uccording  to  the 
Spirit  {Kara  TTvevfia),  as  in  1  :  4,  or,  according  to  his  God- 
head (/cara  Beorrira  ;  compare  Col.  2 :  9) — the  whole  read- 
ins  something  like  this :  "  Of  whom  is  Christ  as  respects 
the  flesh,  but  who  as  respects  his  spiritual  and  higher 
nature,  or  his  essential  deity,  is  God  over  all."  But  the 
contrast  here  employed  is  just  as  expressive  and  appro- 
priate as  a  direct  and  formal  antithesis  would  have 
been.— (F.) 


2  This  author  has  quite  a  full  exposition  of  the  text, 
and  a  defense  of  the  ecclesiastical  doctrine  based,  in 
some  measure,  upon  it.  For  a  brief  summary  of  the 
"Scriptural  Evidence  of  the  Deity  of  Christ,"  see  an 
article  by  the  writer  in  the  "Bibliotheca  Sacra"  for 
July,  18G0.  Since  that  paper  was  written,  new  manu- 
scripts have  been  discovered,  and  it  must  now  be 
conceded  that  earti/  textual  authority  establishes  the 
reading  wAo  instead  of  God  in  1  Tim  3:  Ifi.  Philippi^ 
however,  still  favors  the  reading  of  the  Common  Ver- 
sion.—(F.) 


Ch.  IX.] 


ROMANS. 


223 


6  Not  as  ibotigh  the  word  of  God  hath  taken  none 
effect.     For  they  are  not  all  Israel,  which  are  of  Israel : 

7  Neitlier,  because  they  are  the  seed  ot  Abraham, 
are  thry  all  children:  but,  In  Isaac  shall  thy  seed  be 
calle.1. 

«  That  is,  They  which  are  the  children  of  the  flesh, 
these  are  not  the  children  of  tjod  ;  but  the  children  ol 
the  proiuise  are  counted  for  the  seed. 


7  though  the  word  of  God  hatli  come  to  nought.  For 
they  are  not  all  Israel  that  are  of  Israel :  neither, 
because  they  are  Aliraham's  seed,  are  they  all  chil- 

8  dren:  but,  In  Isaac  shall  thy  seed  lie  culled.  That 
is,  it  is  not  the  children  of  the  Hesh  that  are  children 
of  God;  but  the  childruu  of  the  promise  are  reck- 


to  the  Jews  generally  that  the  word  of  God 
had  come  to  nought,  because  they  iiad  not 
received  tlie  blessing.s  which  they  understood 
to  be  promised:  but  the  apostle  shows  them 
that  they  had  misunderstood  the  promise,  that 
it  was  not  made  to  ail  the  posterity  of  Abra- 
ham, but  only  to  a  selected  portion  of  them, 
whom  God  owned  as  children  of  Abraham  in 
a  spiritual  sense,  [those,  in  other  words,  who 
are  Jews  "inwardly"  (•':  29),  who  are  the 
I.-irael  of  God  (Gai.6:  le),  rather  than  Israel 
after  the  flesh.  Dr.  Weiss  supposes  the  promise 
was  given  to  the  nation  of  the  Jews,  and  not 
to  all  the  individuals  composing  it.  "We  see 
liere  tiiat  carnal  descent,  though  from  seed  of 
divine  promise,  does  of  itself  avail  notliing]. 
For  they  are  not  all  Israel — that  is,  true 
Israelites  in  God's  esteem— which  are  of 
Israel — that  is,  who  are  the  natural  posterity 
of  Jacob. 

7.  Neither,  because  they  are  the  seed 
of  Abraham.  [Notice  how  ''neither'  (ovSe) 
is  preceded  bj-  the  direct  simple  negative  (ou). 
Beginning  with  tiie  previous  sentence,  we  may 
give  this  literal  rendering  of  the  whole  pas- 
sage: "For  not  all  who  are  of  Israel  (are) 
these  Israel,  neither,  because  tliey  are  Abra- 
ham's seed  (are)  all  children  "  (of  Abraham) 
— that  is,  in  a  true,  spiritual  sense.  The  pride 
and  boast  of  the  Jews  was:  "We  have 
Abraham  to  our  father."  {M..tt. 3:  9;  LuUeS:  8; 
John 8: 39.)]  'The  Seed  of  Abraham'  in  this 
verse  corresponds  with  'of  Israel,'  of  the 
preceding  verse  ["Israel  after  the  flesh" 
(1  Cor.  10:  is)],  and  both  are  to  be  understood, 
literally,  of  the  natural  posterity  of  Abraham 
and  Jacob,  or  Israel  ;  and  so,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  term  'children'  in  this  verse  cor- 
responds with  'Israel'  of  the  preceding;  and 
both  are  to  be  understood,  figuratively',  of  the 
spiritual  posterity'  of  Abraham — that  is,  of 
tiiose  "  who  walk  in  the  steps  of  the  faith  of 
our  father  Abraham."  SeeKom.  4:  12;  Gal. 
3 :  9,  '29;  and  John  8 :  37,  39.  [By  these  expres- 
sions the  apostle  indicates  the  possibility  of  a 
rejection  of  a  part  of  the  Jews,  that  people 
who  felt  themselves  to  be  "the  children  of 


the  kingdom."]  The  qut)tation  in  the  last 
clause  of  this  verse — but.  In  Isaac  shall  thy 

seed  be  called  ["a  seed  shall  be  called  for 
thee"] — is  taken  quite  literally  from  Gen.  21: 
12  [without  the  formula  of  quotation,  as 
being  a  well-known  saying],  and  decisively 
confirms  the  previous  assertion,  that  God 
never  meant  to  be  understood  as  promising 
the  covenant  blessings  to  all  Abraham's  pos- 
terity, but  only  to  those  in  the  line  of  Isaac 
[the  <!hild  by  virtue  of  promise],  thus  exclud- 
ing, not  only  Ishmael  and  his  posterity,  as  in 
the  context  of  the  passage  just  referred  to, 
but  equtilly  the  six  sons  of  Keturtih  afterward 
born  to  him,  and  their  descendants.  (Gen. 25: 
1.2.)  ["The  seed  subsisting  in  Isaac  shall 
be  called  thy  seed."  (De  Wette.)  "Thy 
offspring  shall  be  reckoned  from  Isaac." 
(Noyes. )  Mej-er  and  Philippi  give  this  as 
the  apostle's  meaning  :  "The  person  of  Isaac 
shall  be  regarded  as  the  true  seed  or  real 
descendant."  "In  thus  adducing  the  case  of 
Isaac  and  Ishtnael  the  apostle  certainly  did 
not  decide  on  the  eternal  state  of  either  of 
them;  yet  the  subject  which  he  thus  illus- 
trated— namely,  a  remnant  of  believers  among 
an  unbelieving  nation — must  refer  not  to  out- 
ward advantages  and  disadvantages,  but  to 
eternal  salvation  or  damnation."   (Scott.)] 

8.  That  is,  [which  signifies.  They  which 
are  the  children  of  the  flesh,  etc.  This 
sentence,  literally  translated,  reads  thus: 
"Not  the  children  of  the  flesh  (are)  these  the 
children  of  God."  In  other  words,  the  chil- 
dren of  the  flesh  are  not  thereby  the  children 
of  God,  even  though  they  may  have  Abraham 
for  their  father].  Ishmael  was  the  child  of 
Abraham  in  a  natural  and  usual  way;  Isaac 
in  an  unusual  way,  by  virtue  of  an  extra- 
ordinary promi.se  of  God.  See  Gal.  4:  23. 
The  first  was  a  child  of  the  flesh  ;  the  second 
was  a  child  of  promise.  And,  as  owing  his 
birth  to  a  special  divine  interposition,  Isaac 
was  a  fit  representative  and  type  of  all  the 
children  of  God.  See  John  1:  12,  13.  [Chil- 
dren of  the  promise — that  i.<,  "begotten  by 
virtue  of  the  divine  promise  '  (Meyer),  not 


224 


ROMANS. 


[Cii.  IX. 


9  For  this  is  tlie  word  of  promise,  At  this  time  will  I 
come,  and  Sarah  shall  have  a  son. 

10  Aud  not  only  i/iis;  but  when  Rebecca  also  had 
conceived  hy  one,  even  by  our  lather  Isaac, 

11  (For  I'/ie  cliiUiien  being  not  yet  born,  neither 
having  done  any  good  or  evil,  that  tlie  purpose  of  (jod 
acconiing  to  election  might  stand,  not  of  works,  but  of 
him  that  calleth  ;) 


9  oned  for  a  seed.  For  this  is  a  word  of  promise. 
According  to  this  season   will   I  come,  and   Sarah 

10  shall  have  a  sou.  And  not  only  so;  but  Kebecca 
also  having  conceived  by  one,  even   by  our  father 

11  Isaac — for  llie  children  being  not  yet  born,  neither 
having  done  anything  good  or  bad,  that  the  purpose 
of  God  according  to  election  might  stand,  not  of 


as  Noyes  has  it:  "children  to  whom  the 
promise  is  made."  "The  children  of  the 
promise"  are  "those  whom  God  gi  .^es  to 
Abraham  by  spiritual  generation.  .  .  .  They 
who  interpret  'the  children  of  promise'  to 
mean  those  who  by  faith  embrace  the  promise, 
say  indeed  what  is  fact,  but  do  not  speak  with 
suitable  precision,  lor  the  apostle  in  this  place 
does  not  distinguish  the  children  of  Abraham 
from  others  by  their  faith  as  known,  but  he 
discourses  concerning  the  primary  cause — that 
is,  the  fountain  of  their  faith  itself,  namely, 
the  eternal  purpose  of  gratuitous  election." 
(Beza.)]  Are  counted  for  the  seed:  are 
esteemed  by  God  as  the  seed  of  Abraham  in 
the  highest  and  truest  sense.  Compare  notes 
on  3 :  1-6. 

9.  For  this  is  the  word  of  promise  [or, 
''The  v^ord  of  2'>vomise  is  this']  would  be  a 
very  literal  translation  of  the  tirst  clause  of 
this  verse.  [Alford:  "  For  this  word  was  (one) 
of  promise."]  It  is  a  specific  proof  of  the  last 
clause  of  the  preceding  verse.  The  quotation 
which  follows  expresses  the  sense  of  Gen.  18: 
10,14.  At  this  time  means  'at  this  season, 
next  year;'  [in  the  Hebrew:  According  to 
the  living  time — that  is,  "a^  the  reviving  sea- 
son, when  this  season  revives,  returns  again, 
after  passing  away  with  the  departing  year." 
(Conant. )  Gesenius  makes  this  reviving  time 
to  be  the  coming  spring.  The  clause:  And 
Sarah  shall  have  a  son— To  Sarah  shall 
be  a  son — retains  the  form  of  the  Hebrew, 
from  which  the  Septuagint  in  Gen.  18:  10 
varies]. 

10.  And  not  only  this.  [We  now  advance 
from  a  word  of  divine  promise  to  a  word  of 
divine  appointment.  (Meyer.)]  It  will  be  ob- 
served that  the  word  'this'  is  supplied  by  the 
translators.  The  expression  in  the  original  is 
elliptical,  and  the  grammatical  construction 
irregular,  the  name  Rebecca  being  in  the  nom- 
inative without  any  verb;  and  the  sentence 
being  resumed  in  ver.  ]'2,  after  the  parenthesis 
of  ver.  11,  \nt.he  nMercd  form, itwassaidfo  her. 
[Many  regard  this  nominative  as  absolute,  and 
see  in  the  sentence  an  anacolutho7i,  a  changed 


and  unfinished  construction.  Noj-es,  Godet, 
and  the  Bible  Union,  seem  to  avoid  this  by 
translating:  'but  when  Rebecca  also  had 
conceived.'  It  would  seem  to  be  an  "ener- 
getic breviloquence,"  as  though  Paul  would 
saj' :  '  not  only  is  such  the  case  with  regard  to 
Sarah,  but  there  is  Rebecca  also.']  The  ellipsis 
may  be  supplied  thus:  'and  not  only  was 
there  a  divine  word  of  sovereign  discrimina- 
tion to  Abraham,  between  his  two  sons,  and 
in  effect  to  Sarah  likewise  (see  Gen.  18:  13-15), 
but  Rebecca  also  had  a  similar  divine  mes- 
sage.' [So  in  substance,  AViner,  De  Wette, 
Me^'er.  Philippi  opposes  this  on  the  ground 
that  the  promise  of  ver.  9  was  not  given  to 
Sarah,  but  to  Abraham,  and  also  that  the 
saying  of  God  in  ver.  12  was  to  Rebecca  no 
word  of  promise.]  But  when  Rebecca  also 
had  conceived  (twin  sons)  by  one,  even 
by  our  father  Isaac.  The  phrase  'by  one' 
seems  to  be  suggested  by  the  difl^erence  be- 
tween this  case  and  the  former.  In  that  case, 
there  were  two  mothers,  one  a  bond  woman, 
and  the  other  a  free;  but  in  fAis  case,  there 
was  but  one  mother,  and  but  one  father,  which 
makes  the  S(jvereign  limitation  of  the  chosen 
posterity  of  Abraham  to  one  of  the  twin  sons 
the  more  significant,  and  this  example  there- 
fore stronger  than  the  former. 

11.  This  verse  completely  overthrows  the 
doctrine  of  the  pre-existence  of  souls:  the 
children  being  not  yet  born,  and,  of  course, 
neither  having  done  any  good  or  evil. 
[Instead  of  'evil '  (xaKov)  the  Revised  text  has 
bad  ((JiaCAof,  found  in  N  A  B),  which  properly 
signifies  light  or  worthless,  good-for-nothing, 
hence,  with  a  moral  reference,  bad  or  ill, 
(compare  this  with  our  word  "naughty"), 
and  means  a  little  less  than  wicked.  They  were 
not  guilty  of  personal,  voluntary  transgres- 
sions, yet,  as  belonging  to  Adam's  fallen  race, 
thej' both  had  natures  inclined  to  sin.  "As 
regards  original  sin,  both  children  were  alike, 
and  as  regards  actual  sin,  neither  had  any." 
(Augustine.)  Neither  birth  nor  works  gave 
them  any  claim.]  The  purpose  of  God 
according    to   election,  or,    'the   elective 


Ch.  IX.] 


EOMANS. 


225 


purpose  I'f  God,'  is  a  very  definite  and  strong 
expression.  Might  stand  [properly,  viay 
stand,  denoting  permanence];  this  word  is 
the  opposite  of  that  which  in  ver.  6  is  trans- 
lated '  hath  taken  none  effect.'  [This  sen- 
tence in  construction  and  thought  would 
properly  follow  the  first  phrase  of  the  next 
verse.]  Not  of  works  [properly  defines  'pur- 
pose.' Some  make  it  dependent  on  'may 
stand.'  The  positive  negative  (oiic)  is  here 
used,  since  it  is  not  immediately  connected 
with  'that'  (I^a)  or  the  verb].  But  of  him 
that  calleth.  The  absolute  sovereignty  of 
the  divine  election  in  the  bestowment  of 
spiritual  blessings,  irrespective  of  human 
works,  performed  or  foreseen,  could  hardly 
be  affirmed  in  stronger  terms.  ["  The  thought 
of  an  unconditional  election  of  grace  is  here 
distinctly  expressed,  and  the  idea  that  'not  of 
works'  excludes  indeed  all  present  merit,  but 
not  the  future  which  God  has  foreseen,  is 
wholly  vain."  (De  Wette. )  Besides,  the 
works  of  Jacob,  if  foreseen,  could  not  have 
furnished  ground  for  his  election,  for  his 
works  were  very  nearl3'  as  ill  as  Esau's.  Nor 
were  the  descendants  of  Jacob  chosen  to  be 
God's  peculiar  people  because  of  their  worthi- 
ness, as  Moses  frequently  reminded  them. 
See  Deut.  9  :  5.  The  purpose  of  God  to  bless 
Jacob  was  not,  then,  based  on  the  merit  of 
foreseen  good  works,  or  on  the  ground  of  any 
human  claim,  but  was  made  according  to 
God's  free,  yet  not  arbitrary,  choice.  "The 
purpo.?e,"  says  Philippi,  "is  described  as  made 
according  to  election,  or  determined  by  elec- 
tion, linked  to  election,  in  opposition  to  an 
indiscriminate,  universal  saving  decree,  hav- 
ing reference  to  the  whole  human  race,  or  to 
a  definite  class  of  men."  Similarly  Meyer: 
"The  purpose  would  have  been  no  purpose 
according  to  election,  if  God  had  resolved  to 
bless  all  without  exception."  The  apostle, 
moreover,  while  denying  that  God's  elective 
purpose  is  based  on  foreseen  works,  does  not 
affirm  that  it  depends  on  foreseen  faith. 
Instead  of  saying  "not  from  works  but  from 
faith,"  or  on  account  of  faith,  he  simply  adds: 
hnt  frotn  him.  that  calleth.  And  in  2  Tim. 
1  :  9,  Revised  Version,  he  tells  us  that  God's 
saving  call  is  "not  according  to  our  works, 
but  according  to  his  own  purpose  and  grace, 
which  was  given  us  in  Christ  Jesus  before 
times  eternal."     Compare  Eph.  1 :  11;  3:  11. 


Godet  affirms  that  faith  "cannot  boa  merit, 
since  faith  consists  precisely  in  renouncing  all 
merit,"  and  hence  that  faith  foreseen,  unlike 
works  foreseen,  though  a  moral  condition  of 
election,  would  impose  no  obligation  on  God. 
To  this,  we  repl^',  that  if  God's  elective  pur- 
pose from  eternity  is  made  to  depend  upon 
the  foreseen  faith  of  individuals,  then  God, 
even  though  no  obligation  be  imposed  on  him, 
is  yet  no  longer  a  sovereign  disposer  of  grace, 
nor  does  he  take  the  initiative  in  one's  salva- 
tion. A  faith  which  conditions  a  person's 
election,  especially  if  not  based  on  grace, 
should  be  begotten  by  that  person;  and  if 
faith  is  originated  by  man,  little  is  left  for 
election  or  predestination  to  do.  But  Holy 
Scripture,  instead  of  asserting  that  God's  pur- 
pose according  to  election  is  grounded  on  any 
man's  work  or  faith,  explicitly  declares  that 
faith  and  repentance  and  obedience  and  sal- 
vation are  the  result  of  God's  elective  purpose. 
See  8 :  29 ;  Eph.  2  :  8,  10 ;  Phil.  2 :  13 ;  2  Thess. 
2:  13;  2  Tim.  2:  25;  1  Peter  1 :  2,  etc.  Truly, 
as  Augustine  says:  "God  does  not  choose  us 
because  we  believe,  but  that  we  may  believe." 
Even  the  Arminian  Remonstrants,  in  the 
third  and  fourth  "points"  of  their  contro- 
versy with  Calvinism,  affirm,  "that  true  faith 
cannot  proceed  from  the  exercise  of  our  natural 
faculties  and  powers,  or  from  the  force  and 
operation  of  free  will,  since  man,  in  conse- 
quence of  his  natural  corruption,  is  incapable 
of  thinking  or  doing  any  good  thing;  "  and, 
"  that  this  divine  grace  or  energy  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  which  heals  the  disorders  of  a  corrupt 
nature,  begins,  advances,  and  brings  to  per- 
fection everything  that  can  be  called  good  in 
man,  and  that,  consequently,  all  good  works, 
without  exception,  are  to  be  attributed  to  God 
alone  and  to  the  operation  of  his  grace."  It 
would  do  no  harm  if  some  of  the  diluted  Cal- 
vinism of  our  day  was  tinctured  with  a  little 
more  of  such  Arminianism  as  this.  Such 
views  as  these  are  antagonistic  to  the  doctrine 
that  God's  elective  purpose  to  save  is  condi- 
tioned on  man's  foreseen  faith.  Albert  Barnes 
says,  that  the  purpose  of  God  "is  no^  a  pur- 
pose formed  because  he  sees  anything  in  the 
individuals  as  a  ground  for  his  choice,  but  for 
some  reason  which  he  has  not  explained  and 
which  in  the  Scripture  is  simply  called  ^?/r/)ose 
and  good  pleasure."  Such  evidently  was  the 
apostle's  view  of  God's  purpose  according  to 


226 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  IX. 


12  It  was  said  unto  her,  The  elder  shall  serve  the  I  12  works,  but  of  him  that  calleth,  it  was  said  uuto  her, 
younger.  I 


election  ;  otherwise  it  would  not  have  called 
forth  what  Ciilvin  terms  the  "impure  bark- 
ings" of  those  who,  on  account  of  such  elec- 
tion, charged  God  with  injustice.  See  ver.  14. 
Augustine,  in  controversy  with  the  Pelagian 
idea,  that  God  elects  men  because  of  their  fore- 
seen goodness,  says:  "Who  but  must  wonder 
that  this  most  ingenious  sense  should  escape 
the  apostle?  For  after  proposing  what  was 
calculated  to  excite  astonishment  respecting 
those  children  unborn,  he  started  to  himself, 
by  way  of  objection,  the  following  question: 
'What  then,  is  there  unrighteousness  with 
God  ? '  It  was  the  place  for  him  to  answer,  that 
God  foresaw  the  merits  of  each  of  them.  Yet 
he  says  nothing  of  this,  but  resorts  to  the  de- 
crees and  mercy  of  God.'  " 

It  is  to  be  noticed,  however,  that  in  all 
Paul's  writings  there  is  no  plainly  specified 
election  or  predestination  to  eternal  death. 
Calvin,  who  approached,  perhaps,  too  near 
the  precipice,  concerning  which  Augustine 
said  "Beware!"  inferred  the  verity  of  an 
"eternal  reprobation,"  and  the  mere  logical 
faculty  may,  from  one  point  of  view,  deem 
this  inference  to  be  unavoidable.  But  from 
the  apostle's  most  explicit  utterances,  we  learn 
that  those  whom  God  wills  to  blind  and  harden 
are  incorrigible  sinners,  that  those  to  whom 
he  willeth  to  show  mercy  are,  of  course,  lost 
and  guilty,  and  that  his  election  is  of  grace^ 
and  has  reference,  therefore,  to  the  undeserv- 
ing. The  elect  bear  the  name  "vessels  of 
mercy, ^^  which  shows  that  they,  like  the  vessels 
of  wrath,  are  taken  from  a  common  "  mass 
of  perdition";  and  if  the  former  are  saved,  it 
is  because  of  gratuitoKS  election  ;  if  the  latter 
are  reprobated,  it  is  because  of  their  sins.  All 
are  alike  undeserving,  and  hence  God  can, 
without  partiality,  have  mercy  on  whom  he 
will,  can  reject  or  pass  by  whom  he  will,  and 
it  is  ours  only  to  say:  "Even  so.  Father,  for 
so  it  seemed  good  in  thy  sight."  For  some 
further  views  on  this  general  subject,  see  re- 
marks on  8  :  29.  To  the  question  whether 
God's  elective  purpose  regarding  Jacob  and 
Esau  had  reference  to  their  temporal  con- 
dition or  to  their  eternal  state,  we  should  an- 
swer that,  according  to  the  apostle's  repre- 
sentation, it  had  primary  reference  to  their 
temporal  state,  and  not  so  much  to  them  as 


individuals  as  to  their  descendants.  Paul  cer- 
tainly does  not  aiRrm  in  the  next  verse  that 
Jacob  was  elected  to  eternal  salvation  and 
that  Esau  was  reprobated  to  eternal  death, 
but  the  elder  shall  serve  the  younger. 
Yet  even  the  elder  did  not  persmially  serve 
the  younger,  but,  on  the  contrary,  we  read 
that  Jacob,  in  consequence  of  his  supplaiit- 
ings,  was  obliged  to  humble  himself  to 
the  earth  as  a  servant  before  his  brother, 
and  to  say:  "My  lord,  Esau!"  The  one 
however,  was  elected  to  peculiar  external  ad- 
vantages and  to  theocratic  gracious  privileges, 
to  the  use  and  enjoj'ment  of  which  the  other 
was  not  chosen,  while  still  the  other  was  not 
left  entirely  destitute  of  divine  favor  and 
blessing.  Isaac  was  elected  to  a  pre-eminence 
over  Ishmael,  and  Jacob  to  a  pre-eminence 
over  Esau,  yet,  as  Philippi  observes,  "even 
Ishmael  is  not  left  without  promise  (Gen.  le-.  lO; 
17:20),  and  is  preserved  by  divine  providence. 
(Gen.  21:17,  seq.)  Esau  also  reccives  hls  blessing 
(Gen.  27:39,  seq.), while  the  life  of  Isaac  and  Jacob 
is  fertile  in  peculiar  trials  and  sorrows.  And 
the  posterity  of  Ishmael  and  Esau  are,  finally, 
in  admission  into  the  Messianic  kingdom  in 
accordance  with  the  universal  prophetic  prom- 
ises, to  obtain  a  share  in  the  loftiest  preroga- 
tive of  the  chosen  people."  Yet  in  our  view 
God's  elective  purpose,  as  set  forth  in  the 
Scriptures,  does  not  generall3'  have  reference 
to  peoples  and  to  their  enjoyment  of  external 
privileges.  That  Paul  in  this  Epistle  makes 
divine  election  to  be  individual,  gracious,  and 
saving,  is  most  clearly  manifest.  See  ver.  23; 
8:29;  11:5.  And  the  apostle  could  well  show 
this  while  explaining  the  temporary  rejection 
of  God's  people.  Israel,  and  without  digressing 
to  write  a  set  treatise  on  election  and  repro- 
bation. Thus,  from  the  example  of  Jacob 
and  Esau,  Prof.  Stuart  derives  this  lesson: 
"If  God  did,  according  to  election,  make  such 
distinctions  among  the  legitimate  and  proper 
children  of  Isaac,  the  'son  of  promise,'  then 
the  same  God  may  choose,  call,  justify,  and 
glorify  those  who  are  'called'  in  respect  to 
the  heavenly  inheritance.  If  it  is  not  unjust 
or  improper  in  one  case  to  distribute  favors 
'according  to  his  purpose,'  then  it  is  not  in 
another."  Dr.  Shedd*gives  his  views  on  these 
points  as   follows:   "The  theocratic  election 


Ch.  IX.] 


ROMANS. 


227 


13  As  it  is  written,  Jacob  have  I  loved,  but  Esau  have 
I  hated. 

14  What  shall  we  say  then?  Is  there  unrighteous- 
ness with  God  ?     God  loibid. 

15  For  he  saith  to  Moses,  I  will  have  mercy  on  whom 
I  will  have  mercy,  and  1  will  have  couipassioi)  on 
whom  I  will  have  compassion. 


13  The  elder  shall  serve  the  younger.  Even  as  it  is 
written,  Jacob  I  loved,  but  Esau  1  hated. 

14  What  shall  we  say,  then?     Is  there  unrighteous- 

15  ness  with  God?  liod  forbid.  For  he  saith  to 
Moses,  I  will  have  mercy  on  whom  I  have  mercy, 
and  I  will  have  compassion  on  whom  I  have  com- 


of  Isaac  and  Jacob  illustrates  the  spiritual 
election  of  individuals;  and  the  theocratic 
reprt)bation  of  Lshmael  and  Esau  illustrates 
the  spiritual  reprobation  of  individuals.  .  . 
The  question  arises  whether  the  theocratic 
corresponded  with  the  individual  election  and 
reprobation  in  the  cases  of  Jacob  and  Esau 
themselves.  The  fact  that  each  was  a  typical 
personage  favors  the  affirmative,  because  the 
symbolical  is  most  naturally  homogeneous 
with  that  which  it  symbolizes.  It  would  be 
unnatural  to  set  forth  a  spiritually  elect  per- 
son as  the  type  of  the  reprobated  class,  and 
vice  versa.  And  the  history  of  Esau  shows 
that  his  sinful  self-will  was  not  overcome  by 
the  electing  compassion  of  God.  Esau  re- 
nounced the  religion  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and 
Jacob,  in  which  he  had  been  educated,  and 
to  which  he  might  still  have  adhered,  even 
though  he  had,  by  the  divine  will,  lost  his 
primogeniture,  and  lapsed  into  idolatry  with 
his  descendants.  He  falls,  therefore,  into 
the  same  class  with  the  apostate  Jews,  and 
though  'of  Israel'  was  yet  not  Israel." 
(ver.  B.)  But  we  do  not  feel  called  upon  to 
settle  the  eternal  state  of  these  individuals.] 

13.  The  passage  here  cited  [in  confirmation 
of  the  preceding]  is  written  in  Mai.  1  :  2,  3. 
We  must  beware  of  weakening  too  much  the 
expression  Esau  have  I  hated,  since  the 
descendants  of  Esau,  to  whom  the  language  is 
particularly  applied  by  Malachi,  are  described 
as  "the  people  against  whom  the  Lord  hath 
indignation  forever."  (ver.i.)  [We  read  in 
the  Wisdom  of  Solomon  (u  : «) :  "  Thou  Icn'est 
all  things  and  abhorrest  nothing  which  thou 
hast  made,  for  never  wouldst  thou  have  made 
anything,  if  thou  hadst  hated  it."  Certainly 
the  "philanthropy"  of  God  (tuusS:*)  would 
not  allow  him  to  hate  absolutely  and  in  a 
human  manner  any  human  being,  even 
tliough  sinful.  We  may  suppose  that  he 
loved  Esau  personally  with  the  love  of  com- 
passion, while  he  could  not  have  loved  Jacob 
with  entire  complacency.  Those  who  think 
tliat  "hate"  in  Scripture  usage  sometimes 
means  to  love  less,  refer  to  such  passages  as 


Gen.  29  :  30,  31 ;  Luke  14  :  26,  compared  with 
Matt.  10 :  37,  etc.,  where  a  less  degree  of  love, 
compared  with  a  greater,  is  termed  hatred. 
The  expression  is  anthropopathic,  and  refers 
not  so  much  to  the  emotion  as  to  the  effect. 
(Philippi.)  In  Sirach  33  :  11, 12,  we  find  a  like 
declaration  of  the  unequal  distribution  of 
God's  gifts  among  men.  Of  course,  an}'  with- 
holding of  divine  favors  might  seem  an  act  of 
hatred.  It  often  is  an  act  of  judgment  against 
sinners.  Haldane  affirms  that  Esau,  even  be- 
fore his  birth,  deserved  God's  hatred,  because 
he  sinned  in  Adam;  but  surely  his  Adamic 
transgression  was  not  greater  than  that  of 
Jacob.] 

To  this  doctrine,  that  God  chooses  one  and 
rejects  another  athis  mere  good  pleasure,  there 
are  two  objections  urged:  I.  That  it  is  unjust. 
(Ver.  14.)  Answer  1.  (joA  claims  this  preroga- 
tive, (vei.  15, 16.)  Answer  2.  ^Iq  exercises  it. 
(Ver.  17,  18.)  II.  That  it  destroys  human  re- 
sponsibility. (Ver.  19.)  Answer  1.  The  objec- 
tion is  irreverent,  (ver.  m,  -n.)  Answer  2. 
God  only  treats  the  rejected  as  they  deserve, 
and  the  accepted  better  than  they  deserve 
(ver.  22-24) ;  and  neither  of  these  is  unjust. 

14.  Paul  here  states,  in  the  form  of  a  ques- 
tion, an  objection  which  he  sees  likely  to  arise 
in  the  reader's  mind  from  what  has  just  been 
said  (ver.  1113);  and  before  giving  any  specific 
answer  to  that  objection,  indignantly  repels, 
as  he  does  elsewhere  (3:4,5;  cai.  3:2ij,  any  asper- 
sion upon  the  character  of  God.  Let  it  not 
be!  [The  negative  particle  (m>))  in  this  ques- 
tion supposes  a  negative  answer.] 

15.  For  he  saith  to  Closes.  The  'for' 
here  assigns  the  reason  why  the  apostle  so 
emphatically  repudiates  any  possible  ascrip- 
tion of  unrighteousness  to  God;  'for'  he 
explicitly  announces  to  Moses,  as  an  axiom 
which  he  would  liave  all  men  understand, 
that  he  is  sovereign  and  self-moved  in  the 
distribution  of  his  favors;  that  his  mercy  is 
pure  mercy,  and  his  compassion  pure  com- 
passion, and  that  he  owes  no  apology  to  any 
man  for  the  manner  in  which  he  exercises  his 
benevolence.     I  will  have  mercy  on  whom 


228 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  IX. 


16  So  then  it  is  not  of  him  that  willeth,  nor  of  him  I  1(3  passion.     So  then  it  is  not  of  him  that  willeth,  nor 
that  runneth,  but  of  God  that  sheweth  mercy.  I        of  him  that   rimuetli,  but  of  God  that  bath  mercy. 

17  For  the  Scripture  saith  unto  Pharaoh,    Even  for  |  17  For  the  scripture  saith  unto  Pharaoh,  For  this  very 


I  will  have  mercy,  etc.  The  citation  is 
from  Exod.  33  :  19  [closely  following  the  Sep- 
tuagint,  even  to  the  rendering  of  the  tenses. 
(The  Hebrew  is:  I  have  mercy  on  whom  Twill 
have  mercy.  The  Revised  Version  gives  the 
Septuagint  rendering.)  This  utterance  of 
Jehovah  to  Moses  is  "to  be  understood  in  a 
causal  sense  as  expressing  the  reason  why 
Moses'  request  was  granted — namely,  that  it 
was  an  act  of  unconditional  grace  and  com- 
passion on  the  part  of  God,  to  which  no  man, 
not  even  Moses,  could  lay  any  just  claim." 
(Keil  and  Delitzsch.)  "If  to  Moses  God's 
favor  was  absolutely  free  and  unmerited,  how 
much  more  to  others!"  ("Bible  Commen- 
tary.")] The  two  verbs  here  used  have  the 
same  general  sense,  but  the  latter  is  the 
stronger  expression  [denoting  a  greater  degree 
of  pity,  equivalent  to  "bewailing  sympathy." 
(Meyer.)]'  The  twofold  expression  is  very 
emphatic,  and  intimates  that  God  would  have 
men  understand,  once  for  all,  that  he  is  not 
to  be  challenged  to  give  an  account  of  his 
reasons  for  showing  favor  to  some  men  and 
not  to  others.  ["  No  man  may  deal  with  God 
as  if  he  were  his  creditor."  (Bengel.)]  It 
would  be  well  for  cavilers  to  remember  this. 
The  manner  in  which  the  apostle  meets  the 
objection  here  admonishes  us  that  the  surest 
way  to  determine  what  God's  character  allows 
him  to  do  is  to  consult  the  Scriptures  which 
are  his  word.  ["  Paul  considers  it  enough  to 
check  vile  barkings  by  the  testimonies  of 
Scripture."     (Calvin.)] 

16.  So  then  it  is  not  [in  the  power]  of 
him  that  willeth.  [Noyes:  "  It  dependeth 
not  on  him  that  willeth."]  What  is  the 
unexpressed  subject  of  this  sentence?  That 
which  is  implied  in  the  preceding  verses,  the 
mercy  and  compassion  of  God,  or,  more  ex- 
actly, the  obtaining  of  those  divine  favors  and 
blessings  which  proceed  from  his  mercy  and 
compassion.  Are  we  to  conclude,  then,  that 
the  willing  and  the  running  avail  nothing? 
No,  certainly  not,  for  this  would  be  to  con- 
tradict the  gracious   promises  of  our  Lord. 


very 

(Matt.  7:7,8;  John  5:  40;  Rev. '.!■.!:  17,  etc.)       The  apOStoliC 

exhortation  is:  "So  run  that  ye  may  obtain." 
(1  Cor.  9:24,  26.)  [See  also  Phil.  3  :  14;  2  Tim. 
4:  7.]  But  the  meaning  is,  that  the  will  and 
the  power  to  run  so  as  to  obtain  are  themselves 
from  God  (pwi. 2:i3),  so  that,  in  the  ultimate 
analysis  of  the  matter,  it  ail  depends  upon 
God  who  showeth  mercy.  His  gracious  and 
sovereign  will  is  before,  and  behind,  and  be- 
neath all  human  willing  and  running.  ["The 
human  striving  is,  indeed,  necessary,  but  it 
ever  remains  dependent."  (De  Wette. )  To 
will  and  to  run  in  our  own  strength  is  vain, 
nor  can  any  human  willing  or  working  lay 
God  under  obligations  or  furnish  a  ground  of 
justification.  "The  mercy  of  God,"  says  Dr. 
Ripley,  "is  not  a  result  of  a  person's  own  will 
or  desire  for  it,  as  the  originating  or  procuring 
cause.  .  .  .  The  apostle  here  denies  the  meri- 
torious character  of  such  desires  and  efl'orts, 
as  if  they  would  constitute  a  claim  for  the 
blessings.  Not  to  man's  desert,  but  to  God's 
will  and  unmerited  mercy,  must  blessings  be 
traced."  The  Jews  both  willed  and  ran  earn- 
estly and  sought  eagerly  after  a  law  of  right- 
eousness, but  "they  stumbled."  It  is  singular 
that  some,  like  Chrysostom,  put  the  utterance 
of  this  verse  into  the  mouth  of  an  opponent 
instead  of  regarding  it  as  the  apostle's  own 
inference.]  To  suppose  any  special  reference 
to  Abraham's  willing  in  favor  of  Ishmael,  or 
Isaac's  in  favor  of  Esau,  or  to  Esau's  running 
to  hunt  venison  for  his  father,  as  if  these 
historic  facts  had  suggested  the  form  of  the 
expression,  is  to  narrow  and  limit  the  words 
unduly.  They  undoubtedly  are  borrowed 
from  the  Grecian  games,  to  which  Paul  so 
often  refers  in  his  epistles,  (i  cor.9:24-26;  Gai.2:2; 
5:7;  Phii.2:i6.)  ["Observe  that  in  the  exercise 
of  this  sovereign  choice  God  is  here  spoken  of 
as  having  mercy."     (Boise.)] 

17.  For  the  Scripture  saith  unto  Pha- 
raoh. ['For'  denotes  a  consequence  e  con- 
trnrio,  drawn  from  the  preceding  statement.] 
'The  Scripture'  is  here  identified  with  its 
divine  author,  as  in  Gal.  3:  8,  22;  4:  30.    The 


1  Compare  Xuttij  and  o&wri  in  ver.  2  for  a  correspond- 
ing advance  of  emphasis.  The  particle  nn  {av)  belongs 
to  tlie  relative  rather  than  to  the  verb  (Butfniann,217), 
making  it  equivalent  to  "whomsoever,"  and  thereby 


indicating  the  freedom  of  the  divine  choice.  This  par- 
ticle is,  as  here,  commonly  used  in  the  New  Testament 
with  the  subjunctive. — (F.) 


Ch.  IX  ] 


ROMANS. 


229 


this  same  purpose  have  I  raised  thee  up,  that  I  might 
shew  my  puwtr  in  thee,  and  that  niy  uume  might  be 
declared  thuughuut  all  the  earth. 


purpose  did  I  raise  thee  up,  that  1  might  shew  in 
thee  my  power,  aud  that  my  name  might  tie  pub- 
is lished  abroad  iu  all  the  earth.     80  theu  he  hath 


quotation  is  from  Exod.  9:  16.  [The  article 
witli  Phiiraoh  denotes  the  dative  case  and 
probably  was  not  meant  to  particularize  "tlie 
Pharaoh  who  lived  in  the  time  of  Moses.'' 
(Bengel.)  Compare  the  Moses  in  ver.  15. 
The  Greek  has  a  word  (on),  before  the  quota- 
tion, which  is  not  translated.  It  is  here,  as 
frequently,  merely  the  sign  of  quotation.  It 
is  worthy  of  remark  that  Pharaoh  was  not 
thus  spoken  to  till  after  he  or  his  land  had 
been  visited  with  six  plagues.]  The  words 
Have  I  raised  thee  up  are  not  to  be  under- 
stood specifically,  of  raising  up  to  the  throne, 
much  less  of  raising  up  from  sickness,  as  in 
James  5  :  15  (whore  only  the  context  gives 
the  verb  this  peculiar  sense)  ;  but  in  a  general 
sense.  'I  have  given  thee  thy  j)lace  in  his- 
tory,' as  the  verb  is  used  in  Matt.  11  :  11 ;  24: 
11 ;  John  7:  52,  etc.  Tliis  general  sense  alone 
suits  the  context,  and  the  apostle's  argument. 
[This  verb  is  used  about  seventy  times  in  the 
Septuagint.  "In  none  of  these  cases  does  it 
mean  to  create,  U)  produce,  to  raise  up,  in  the 
sense  of  bringing  into  being."  (Stuart.) 
Hence  Beza's  rendering:  feci  ut  existeres,  "I 
have  caused  thee  to  exist,"  would  seem  to  be 
inadmissible.  The  Hebrew  verb,  "I  caused 
thee  to  stand,"  is  rather  loosely  rendered  in 
the  Septuagint,  "on  account  of  this  thou  wast 
preserved."  Yet  this  in  sense  is  akin  to  Isaac 
Leeser's  version  :  "I  allowed  thee  to  remain," 
and  to  Dr.  Giflbrd's  in  the  "  Bible  Commen- 
tary," "I  spared  and  upheld  thee."  These 
renderings  convey  the  idea  that  the  continu- 
ing of  Pharaoh's  life  of  rebellion  was  the 
means  of  magnifying  the  name  and  power  of 
Jehovah.  Me^-er gives  this  paraphrase:  "Thy 
whole  historical  appearance  has  been  brought 
about  by  me,  in  order  that,"  etc.  De  Wette's 
rendering,  favored  by  Prof.  Stuart,  "I  have 
incited  thee  to  resistance,"  seems  to  be  an 
addition  to  the  text.]  This  is  an  illustration 
on  the  darker  side  ;  and  it  is  a  vindication  of 


God's  justice,  on  the  a.ssumed  axiom  that 
what  he  declares  his  purpose  to  do  and  actually 
does  is  right.  There  can  be  no  higher  proof 
that  a  thing  is  righteous  than  that  God  does  it. 
That  I  might  shew  my  power  in  thee — 
that  is,  by  thy  signal  overthrow  at  the  Ked 
Sea.'  And  that  my  name  might  be  de- 
clared throughout  all  the  earth.  The 
word  translated  'declared'  is  an  emphatic 
word,  implying  a  thorough  publication  of 
God's  righteous  severity  in  Pharaoh's  destruc- 
tion. "We  have  a  record  in  Josh.  2:  9-11  of 
the  effect  which  the  report  of  God's  judgment 
on  Pharaoh  had  on  the  inhabitants  of  Jericho. 
[Compare  also  Exod.  15:  14,  seq.]  Meyer 
and  Tholuck  cite  Greek  and  Koman  authors 
of  later  times  who  refer  to  these  things;  the 
dispersion  of  the  Jews  scattered  the  famous 
tidings  far  and  wide  among  the  nations;  the 
Koran  helped  to  spread  the  story  wherever  it 
went;  and  the  Scriptures  are  fast  publishing 
it  literally  '  throughout  all  the  earth.'  So  it 
is  that  God's  'name,'  his  power  and  justice 
in  the  overthrow  of  the  proud  and  hardened 
oppressor  of  his  people,  is  gradually  and  at 
last  universally  made  known  throughout  the 
whole  world.  ["God  might  have  caused  Pha- 
raoh to  be  born  in  a  cabin,  where  his  proud 
obstinacy  would  have  been  displayed  with  no 
less  self-will,  but  without  any  notable  histori- 
cal consequence.  On  the  other  hand,  he 
might  have  placed  on  the  throne  of  Egypt  at 
that  time  a  weak,  easj'-going  man,  who  Avould 
have  yielded  at  the  first  shock.  What  would 
have  happened?  Pharaoh  in  his  obscure  posi- 
tion would  not  have  been  less  arrogant  and 
perverse,  btit  Israel  would  have  gone  forth 
from  Egj'pt  without  eclat.  No  plagues  one 
upon  another,  no  Red  Sea  miraculously 
crossed,  no  Egyptian  army  destroj-ed ;  noth- 
ing of  all  that  made  so  deep  a  furrow  in  the 
Israelitish  conscience,  and  which  remained 
for  the  elect  people  the  immovable  founda- 


iThe  verb  'shew  forth 'occurs  eleven  times  in  the 
New  Testament,  but  only  in  Paul's  writings  and  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  It  is  in  the  middle  voice  (with 
transitive  signification)  and  probably  has  a  slight  sub- 
jective reference.  Thus:  show  forth  far  i7iy.i('/f,  or,  on 
my  account.  Hence  the  pronoun  '  my  '  is  not  redundant. 
The  apostle  substitutes  for  the  strength  (,1<t\vv)  of  the 


LXX.  the  more  general  term  power  (Svvaiiiv),  also  omus 
— tfia/,  to  the  end  that — for  IVo — that,  the  latter  commonly 
referring  to  the  more  direct,  the  former  to  the  more 
remote  or  secondary  purpose.  The  »wo  verbs  in  the 
subjunctive,  by  which  mood  continuance  of  action  or 
result  is  noted,  might  be  rendered  by  the  auxiliary, 
mat/. — (F.) 


230 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  iX. 


18  Therefore  hath  he  ruercy  on  whom  he  will  have 
mercy,  aud  whom  he  will  he  hardeneth. 


mercy  on  whom  he  will,  and  whom  he  will  he  har- 
deneth. 


tion  of  their  relation  to  Jehovah.  And  there- 
after also  no  influence  produced  on  the  sur- 
rounding nations.  The  entire  history  would 
have  taken  another  direction."     (Godet. )] 

18.  Therefore  hath  he  mercy  on  Avhom 
he  will  have  mercy.  [The 'whom'  (oi/)  of 
this  clause,  or  the  one  on  'whom'  God  wills 
to  show  'mercy,'  is  not  what  the  anti-supra- 
lapsarians  call  a  "nonentity,"  nor  is  he  a 
pure  and  innocent  being,  but  an  actually  ex- 
isting guilty  and  undeserving  transgressor; 
otherwise  God  could  show  him  no  tnercy. 
And  it  is  precisely  the  same  class  of  persons 
whom  God,  for  reasons  sufficient  to  himself, 
willeth  to  harden.  The  last  clause  of  the 
verse:  And  whom  he  will  he  hardeneth — 
may  well  be  read  by  sinful  men  with  "bated 
breath,"  and  feelings  of  awe.]  In  the  account 
of  God's  dealings  with  Pharaoh  in  Exodus, 
we  have  these  three  modes  of  expression — 
"the  Lord  hardened  Pharaoh's  heart"  : 
Exod.  4:  21;  7:  3;  9:  12;  10:  1,  20,  27;  11: 
10;  14:  4,  8;  "Pharaoh  hardened  his  heart"  : 
Exod.  8:  15,  32  (in  Heb.  8:  11,  28);  9:  34; 
"  Pharaoh's  heart  was  hardened  "  [remained 
hardened]:  Exod.  7:  13,  14,  22;  8:  19  [in 
Heb.  8 :  15]  ;  9 :  7,  35.  No  doubt  all  these 
three  expressions  refer  to  the  same  fact,  but  it 
does  not  follow  that  they  all  have  the  same 
meaning,  nor  are  we  at  liberty  to  weaken  the 
force  of  the  first,  and  most  frequent,  by  sub- 
stituting for  it,  'the  Lord  suffered  Pharaoh  to 
harden  his  heart.'  The  language  itself,  and 
the  way  in  which  Paul  uses  the  illustration, 
imply  something  more  than  a  mere  passive 
per^nission  on  the  part  of  God.  The  one 
point  which  must  be  guarded  is,  that  God 
never  solicits  men  to  evil,  and  then  punishes 
them  for  yielding  to  the  solicitation.  James 
1  :  13  decisively  negatives  that  idea.  We  will 
not  undertake  to  explain  precisely  how  God 
rightfully  may,  and  sometimes  actually  does 
harden  a  man's  heart  (for  the  case  of  Pharaoh 
can  hardly  be  considered  a  solitary  one) ;  but 
we  will  rather  rest  content  with  enforcing  the 
Psalmist's  solemn  admonition,  "Stand  in  awe 
and  sin  not."    (*=  *■)    [The  first  two  examples 


and  the  last  but  one  of  the  first  series  of  texts 
cited  above  are  prophecies:  'will  harden.' 
Omitting  the  two  former,  we  may  notice  that 
it  is  said  of  Pharaoh  seven  times  eitherthat  he 
hardened  his  heart,  or  that  his  heart  remained 
hard,  before  it  is  affirmed,  in  9:  12,  that  Jeho- 
vah hardened  him.  "  And  even  after  that," 
as  Godet  says,  as  if  a  remnant  of  liberty  still 
remained  to  him,  it  is  said  for  a  last  time 
that  "he  hardened  himself"  (9:34),  or  "  re- 
mained hardened."  (9:35.)  This  is  an  instance 
of  a  man's  giving  himself  up,  and  of  God"s 
giving  him  up,  "to  work  iniquity."  "When 
God  hardens  a  man,"  says  Charnock,  "he 
only  leaves  him  to  his  stonj- heart."  Tholuck 
ob.serves  that — "In  the  case  before  us  the 
divine  agency  inust  be  limited  to  the  fact 
that  God  brought  about  those  circumstances 
which  make  a  heart  disposed  to  evil  still 
harder.  That  God  did  thus  to  Pharaoh  is 
shown  by  history.  That  such  is  the  only 
sense  in  which  it  is  said  that  God  hardened 
Pharaoh  is  evinced  by  the  fact  of  its  being 
declared  in  the  context  that  Pharaoh  hardened 
himself."  Compare  with  this  the  exhortation 
of  Ps.  95  :  8 ;  Heb.  3  :  8,  15,  "  harden  not  your 
hearts."  The  Scriptures  which  speak  of  God's 
hardening  the  heart  of  Pharaoh,  at  the  same 
time  blame  him  for  his  pride  and  self-will 
(Exod. 9:  17:  10: 3,  4),  while  Pharaoh  on  his  part 
makes  frequent  confession  of  sin.  (Exod.  9:  27; 
10:  16,17.)  We  must  hold  to  the  truth  of  the 
apostle's  statement,  even  though  we  think, 
with  Philippi  and  Godet,  that  a  different  view 
would  have  been  presented  had  Paul  not  been 
combating  Pharisaic  pretension  and  arro- 
gance. Alford  says:  "Whatever  difficulty 
there  lies  in  this  assertion  that  God  hardeneth 
whom  he  will,  lies  also  in  the  daily  course  of 
his  providence,  in  which  we  see  this  harden- 
ing process  going  on  in  the  case  of  the  pros- 
perous ungodly  man."  The  conjecture  of 
some  that  'hardeneth'  here  means  to  treat 
harshly,  in  supposed  accordance  with  Job 
39  :  16,  where  the  ostrich  is  spoken  of  as 
hardening  her  young,  is  scarcely  worthy  of 
notice.]  ^ 


'  We  are  sorry  to  see  that  the  vom  Slrausse  (of  the 
ostrich)  of  Philippi's  commentary  on  this  passage,  is, 
probably  from  mere   inadvertence,  converted  into  a 


proper  name  in  the  generally  excellent  translation  of 
this  excellent  work. — (F.) 


Ch.  IX.] 


ROMANS. 


231 


19  Thou  wilt  say  tlien  unto  ine,  Why  doth  he  yet  find 
fault?    For  who  hath  resisted  his  will? 


19      Tbou  wilt  say  then  unto  me,  Why  doth  he  still 


19.  [Thou  wilt  say  then  unto  me — not: 
what  sfuiU  we  say  then?  The  sharp  answer 
which  follows  shows  that  the  iipostle  has  as 
his  opponent,  nut  a  modest  inquirer,  but  an 
insolent  antagonist.  So  Philippi,  who  thinks 
tluit  Paul  has  an  arrogant  Jew  before  him  in 
the  whole  of  the  present  exposition.]  Why 
doth  he  yet  find  fault?  ['Yet'  — that 
is,  after  he  has  hardened  me,  or  "after  he 
has  taken  away  freedom  and  accountability 
tiirough  his  purpose  to  harden."  (De  Wette. ) 
How  can  he  blame  me  for  disobedience? 
"  Why  am  I  still  judged  as  a  sinner?"  Meyer, 
seemingly  against  the  context,  regards  the 
question  as  tragic  rather  than  impious,  "the 
expression  of  human  weakness  in  presence  of 
the  divine  decree  of  hardening."  Who  is 
able  to  resist  the  fixed  purpose  of  the  Almighty? 
Compare  Acts  11 :  17.]  Who  hath  resisted 
(or,  resists,  the  perfect  being  used  as  present) 
his  will?  If  it  is  God's  will  to  harden  a  man, 
since  his  will  cannot  be  successfully  resisted, 
how  can  he  blame  hardened  sinners?  This  is 
a  common  objection  to  the  view  of  God's 
sovereignty  which  Paul  has  presented.  It  is 
imjiortant  and  instructive  to  note  how  he 
meets  this  cavil. 

[This  verse  shows  us  that  other  minds  than 
ours  have  been  troubled  with  tlie  unfathom- 
able mysteries  of  God's  creation  and  moral 
government.    Paul  himself  stood  face  to  face 


with  all  the  deep,  dark  problems  of  the  uni- 
verse, and  wedo  not  suppose  that  even  his  mind 
was  so  far  supernaturally  enlightened  as  to  bo 
able  to  solve  them.  His  language  in  1  Cor. 
13:  12  (Revised  Version)  is:  "Now  we  see 
in  a  mirror,  darkly"  (margin,  "Greek,  in  a 
riddle");  and  we  may  well  believe  that  the 
universe  had  for  him  its  insoluble  enigmas. 
In  a  coming  chapter  we  shall  see  how  he 
speaks  of  the  "  unsearchable  judgments"  and 
the  "untraceable  ways"  of  God.  The  verse 
before  us  presents  a  problem  of  exceeding 
difficulty.'  We  are  held  blamable  for  dis- 
obedience to  God,  and  yet  how  is  it  possible 
for  a  weak  and  dependent  creature  to  resist 
and  thwart  the  will  of  the  Omnipotent?  Yet 
we  do  in  this  world  resist  and  disobey  his  law, 
or  revealed  will,  continuall3',  otherwise  all 
men  would  at  once  come  to  repentance  (2  eter 
3:9)  and  to  a  full  knowledge  of  the  truth 
(1  Tim.  2:  *),  and  we  should  not  have  been 
taught  to  pray:  "Tl)y  will  (eeXrtixa)  he  done 
on  earth  as  in  heaven."  A  difl'erent  word, 
however,  is  used  for  'will'  in  our  passage — 
(namely*,  pouArj^o)  which  here  seems  to  denote 
his  determinate,  predetermining,  immutable 
counsel  (or  /SovA^ ;  see  Acts  2 :  23 ;  4 :  28 ; 
Heb.  6:  17),  which  cannot  be  thwarted  or 
withstood ;  and  how  can  a  frail  creature  of 
earth  resist  "the  counsel  of  his  will"?  (BouAni- 
ToO  6t\rjiJi.aT(K  oiiToC,  Eph.  1 :  11.°)    Hcnce  from 


1  "  The  great  and  perhaps  ever  insoluble  prol)Ieni 
still  remains — namely,  the  ability  of  a  created  being  to 
act  contrary  to  the  will  of  God — how  God  came  to 
create  a  being  with  power  to  withstand  him,  the 
Almighty  One."  (Olshausen.)  But  if  we  cannot  with- 
stand or  transgress,  but  do  perfectly  fulfill  his  decretive 
will,  his  eternal  purpose,  how  can  we  be  held  blamable 
for  transgression  ?  We  have  here  for  certain  a  "  plausi- 
ble and  formidable  objection  "  (Hodge),  and  the  apos- 
tle seeks  rather  to  strike  the  objector  dumb  by  rebuking 
his  irreverent  sjiirit,  than  to  solve  fully  the  speculative 
difficulty.  We  can  see  that  there  is  in  the  objection  a 
spirit  of  disobedience  and  rebellion,  we  can  feel  that 
there  is  some  perversion  or  insufficient  statement  of  the 
truth,  but  the  logical  faculty  finds  it  a  hard  task  to 
clear  the  (luestion  of  all  difficulty.  "This  is  indeed," 
says  Dr.  Schafl",  "  one  of  the  greatest  and  most  difficult 
problems,  which  can  never  be  fully  solved  from  the 
standpoint  of  earthly  knowledge.  Only  after  the 
accomplished  victory  over  evil,  can  the  deep,  dark 
enigma  of  evil,  which  forms  the  main  difficulty  of  the 
problem,  be  solved." — (F.) 


*A  similar  thought  is  expressed  in  2  Chron.  20:  6; 
Job  9  :  19  (LXX.) ;  Wisdom  of  Solomon  12  :  12.  ©eAu  and 
^oiiAofiai  are  both  employed  by  way  of  contrast  in 
Matt.  1  :  19,  the  former,  according  to  classic  usage, 
generally  denoting  a  volition  ;  the  latter,  an  inclination 
or  propensity  of  the  mind.  [Here  the  reverse  seems 
to  me  to  be  the  fact.  (A.  11.)]  Boi/Aoju.at,  to  have  in 
thought,  to  intend,  is  never  used  of  brutes,  while  in 
Homer  it  is  always  used  when  speaking  of  the  gods, 
since  their  wish  is  equivalent  to  effect.  (Robinson,  Lid- 
dell  and  Scott.)  We  may  say  that  it  is  God's  present 
^ovAtj^o  (using  the  term  in  the  weaker  sense  of  desire) 
that  none  should  perish,  but  that  all  men  should  come 
to  repentance  (2  Peter  :) :  9),  and  that  it  is  his  deAjjjua, 
or  will,  that  all  men  should  be  saved  and  conio  to  a 
full  knowledge  of  the  truth.  (1  Tim.  2;  4.)  Yet  this  his 
desire  and  will  surely  do  not  come  to  pass  in  this 
world;  but  we  can  hardly  say  that  either  of  these  is 
his  established,  immutHble  counsel  or  purpose;  other- 
wise this  universal  repentance  and  attainment  of  the 
truth  would  have  already  taken  place.  Prof.  Turner 
seems  inclined  to  think  that  even  God's  purpose  may 


232 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  IX. 


20  Nay  but,  O  man,  who  art  thou  that  repliest  against 
God?  Shall  the  thing  formed  say  to  him  that  formed 
it,  Whv  hast  thou  made  me  thus? 

21  Hath  not  the  potter  power  over  the  clay,  of  the 


20  find  fault?  For  who  withstandeth  his  will?  Nay 
but,  O  man,  who  art  thou  that  repliest  against  God? 
Shall  the  thing  formed  say  to  him  that  formed  it, 

21  Why  didst  thou  malie  me  thus?    Or  bath  not  the 


this  view  of  the  matter,  the  rebellious  sinner 
is  tempted  to  reply  against  God  v;ith  very 
great  freedom  of  language,  and  to  say:  "I 
um  not  to  blame  for  resisting  God's  eternal 
purpose  concerning  me,  since  such  resistance 
on  my  part  is  an  impossibility;"  or,  "I  do 
not  resist  God,  for  in  hardening  myself  I  have 
done  nothing  but  obey  him."  Objections 
similar  to  the  above  are  noticed  by  James 
(1:13)  and  by  the  Son  of  Sirach  (Eccies.  is:  n,i.i), 
and  are  rebutted  by  a  direct  denial.  While 
therefore  we  cannot  entirely  remove  the 
speculative  diflSculty  attending  this  subject, 
we  can  tell  the  sinner  that  he  is  not  sincere  in 
making  this  objection  ;  that  he  is  offering  it 
as  a  mere  make-shift;  that  he  knows  God 
does  not  make  him  sin  ;  that  he  is  opposed  to 
God  and  does  disobey  and  resist  God's  will; 
and  that  he  does  this  of  his  free  choice ;  that 
he  does  not  intend  to  obey,  but  he  intends 
evil  and  makes  this  wickedness  himself;  that 
his  alleged  obedience  is  all  a  farce,  and  cannot 
be  deemed  by  himself  genuine,  hearty,  or 
meritorious.  God  by  his  providence  may 
indeed  give  shape  to  the  evil,  and  by  his  infi- 
nite power  and  wisdom  cause  it  to  promote 
his  glory,  and  yet  may  rightfully  punish  the 
sinner  for  his  intended  transgression.] 

20.  Nay  but,  O  man,  etc.  When  the  ob- 
jector becomes  too  bold  and  irreverent,  Paul 
rebukes  his  impiety  before  making  anj'  other 
reply  to  his  objection.  It  does  not  become 
the  creature  to  dispute  with  the  Creator  or  to 
call  him  to  account.  [Nor  will  Jehovah  upon 
compulsion  give  any  account  of  his  matters. 
Instead  of  the  'nay  but,'  we  might  properly 
read — yen  rather  (Luke  ii:  28),  or,  indeed,  with  a 
slight  touch  of  ironj'.  Through  the  inversion 
of  words  in  the  interrogative  clause,  a  frequent 
usage  in  the  New  Testament,  the  'thou'  is 
rendered  emphatic.  The  'O  man'  is  inserted 
to  denote  his  inferiority  and   impotence  as 


contrasted  with  the  Almighty.  It  has  been 
said  that  this  replying  against  God  by  so  weak 
a  creature  as  man  shows  that  he  has  a  free 
will,  or,  at  least,  that  he  can  use  his  tongue 
very  freely.  If  the  sinner  is  rebellious  against 
God  and  chooses  to  use  his  freedom,  he  can 
find  much  wherewith  to  reply  against  God. 
He  would  bring  God  down  below  the  level  of 
his  creatures  and  make  him  respoyisible,  as  it 
were,  for  all  that  is  ill  in  the  universe.  '  Nay 
but,  O  man,'  thou  art  too  weak  and  ignorant 
and  insignificant  to  put  on  such  airs  of  supe- 
riority and  to  contend  so  haughtily  with  God. 
Shall  the  thing  formed  say,  etc.  The 
Greek  particle  (mji)  supposes  a  negative  an- 
swer. The  application  of  the  term  'thing 
formed"  (jrAao-na)to  man  is  warranted  by  Gen. 
2:7;  Ps.  103  :  14— Septuagint  Version  (102 :  u), 
'he  knoweth  our  frame'  (irXaaiia) — and  1  Tim. 
2:13.  In  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon  (tm), 
Adam  is  called  the  ^protoplast.'  The  query 
seems  to  have  reference,  not  to  an  original 
creation  (as  of  clay  with  its  properties),  but 
to  the  making  or  fashioning  of  that  which 
already  exists.  Dr.  Hodge  says  :  "  It  is  to  be 
borne  in  mind  that  Paul  does  not  here  speak 
of  the  right  of  God  over  his  creatures  as  crea- 
tures, but  as  sinful  creatures,  as  he  himself 
clearly  intimates  in  the  next  verse.  It  is  the 
cavil  of  a  sinful  creature  against  his  Creator 
that  he  is  answering."  Hence  the  question, 
as  Dr.  Shedd  remarks, "is  not, Why  hast  thou 
made  me  a  sinner?  but.  Why  hast  thou  left 
me  in  sin?"  So  if  we  apply  this  language  to 
the  Jewish  people  whom  God  formed  into  a 
nation,  their  query  would  be:  "Why  hast 
thou  withheld  thy  mercy  from  thy  people 
Israel,  and  why  dost  thou  show  thy  favor  to 
the  Gentiles?  Why  hast  thou  rejected  or 
passed  by  thy  covenant  people  and  adopted 
the  uncircumcised  heathen  ?  "] 
21.  Hath  not  the  potter  power  over  the 


fail  of  accomplishment.  If  this  be  so,  then  the  eternal 
blessedness  of  the  saints  is  not  secure, and  heaven  itself 
may  be  lost  out  of  God's  universe.  Dr.  Shedd  says: 
"The  distinction  between  the  will  of  desire  and  the 
will  of  decree  is  illustrated  in  the  human  sphere  by 
the  difference  between  inclination  and  volition.  A 
man  frequently  opposes  the  inclination  of  his  will  by  a 
volition  of  his  will.    He  decides  to  do  what  he  is  di's- 


inclined  to  do."  In  a  similar  way  some  speak  of  a 
principal  or  antecedent  will  and  a  consequent  will. 
The  "  Bible  Commentary  "  says :  "  When  eSe'Aco  (or  0i\ui) 
and  jSoiiAoM-ai  are  dis/inguished,  the  former  means  the 
simple,  spontaneous  will,  the  latter  the  conscious  and 
deliberate  purpose."  See  further  on  8i\u>  and  ^ouAo^iai, 
notes  to  7  :  15,  also  a  long  discussion  under  6e\ui  in 
Thayer's  Lexicon.— (F.) 


Ch.  IX.] 


ROMANS. 


233 


same  liiiupto  make  one  vessel  unto  honour,  and  another 
unto  dishonour? 


potter  a  right   over  the  clay,  from  the  same  lump  to 
make  one  part  a  vessel  uuto  honour,  and  another 


clay,  etc.  ['Or'  should  precede  'hath,'  as  in 
the  Revised  Version.  "It  introduces  a  fresh 
ground  of  rebuke."  (Alford.)  'Over  the 
clay'  (n-TjAoO)  is  here  separated  from  its  gov- 
erning substantive,  'power,'  owing,  perhaps, 
to  the  joining  together  of  words  of  similar  or 
related  import.]  This  figure  is  found  repeat- 
edly in  the  prophets.  See  Isa.  29:16;  45:9; 
64:8;  Jer.  18 :  6  [also  Job  10  :8,  9;  Wisd.  of 
Sol.  15  :  7  ;  Eccles.  33  :  13  (36  :  13,  LXX.)  ;  38  : 
29,  30].  The  comparison  must  not  be  pressed 
too  far.  It  is  just  as  impossible  for  man  to 
liave  just  cause  to  complain  against  God  as 
it  is  for  the  clay  to  have  cause  to  complain 
against  the  potter,  but  not  for  the  same  reason. 
In  the  case  of  the  clay  and  the  potter,  the 
fault-finding  is  forbidden  by  the  nature  of  the 
clay;  in  the  case  of  man  and  his  Maker,  it 
is  forbidden  by  the  character  of  the  Maker. 
The  nature  of  the  substance  wrought  upon 
forbids  complaint  in  the  former  case;  the 
character  of  the  Being  who  works  and  none 
can  hinder  forbids  it  in  the  latter  case.  The 
authority  of  the  worker  is  just  as  absolute  in 
the  one  case  as  in  the  other;  but,  on  the  other 
hand,  it  is  just  as  certain — nay,  even  more 
certain — that  God  will  not  treat  creatures 
made  in  his  own  image  as  insensate  clay,  as 
that  the  potter  will  not  treat  the  clay  as  if  it 
were  rational  and  moral  and  capable  of  know- 
ing when  it  was  ill-used.  Having  thus  boldly 
rebuked  the  irreverence  of  the  objector,  Paul 
takes  up  the  case  more  calmly  and  vindicates 
the  justice  of  God's  dealing  with  men.  [As 
"the  potter  does  not  make  the  clay  but  digs 
it"  (Boiigel),  so  the  reference  here  is  not  to 
an  original  creation  of  the  clay.  The  lump 
Avith  which  the  potter  has  to  do  is  the  claj' 
with  its  natural  properties,  moistened  and 
prepared  for  moulding.  So  the  lump  of  hu- 
manity is  humanity  with  its  natural  proneness 
to  evil.  "The  words  'I  will  have  mercy  on 
whom  I  have  mercy'  imply  that  all  deserved 
wrath,  so  that  the  lump  of  clay  in  the  hands 
of  the  potter  must  refer  to  men  already  exist- 
ing in  God's  foreknowledge  as  fallen  crea- 
tures."   (Scott.)^   The  potter  has  "authority  " 


or  "right"  (cfou<n'a)  over  the  clay — not  merely 
physical  strength  (t<7xu'«  or  Siivaixn) — to  make 
of  one  part  a  vessel  unto  honor  (for  honorable 
use)  and  of  another  a  vessel  unto  dishonor. 
Compare  2  Tim.  2  :  '20.  None  of  these  vessels 
are  worthless,  but  all  have  some  use,  otherwise 
the  apostle  would  not  in  this  connection  intro- 
duce the  words  'unto'  (eU),  'willing'  [eeKmv), 
and  'that'  (iVo).  The  clay  in  its  inferiority 
cannot  question  the  potter,  but  we  may  say 
that  no  potter  has  a  right  to  spend  his  time 
and  energies  in  making  useless  vessels,  and 
no  wise  potter  will  make  vessels  merely  for 
the  sake  of  destroying  them.  But  he  may 
make  from  the  same  lump  some  vessels  for 
honorable  and  some  for  ignoble  use.  These 
vessels  are  not  necessarily-  identical  with  the 
vessels  of  mercy  and  of  wrath  named  below. 
"The  work  of  the  skillful  potter,"  says  Godet, 
"is  not  the  emblem  of  an  arbitrary  use  of 
strength,  but,  on  the  contrary,  of  a  deliberate 
and  intelligent  empl()3'ment  of  the  matter  at 
his  disposal."  If  we  apply  this  figure  of  the 
claj'  to  fallen  humanity,  then  the  lump  may 
represent  both  Jews  and  Gentiles  (ver.  24),  and 
the  apostle  teaches  us  that  the  Jews  could  not 
demand  of  God  that  thej'  should  be  made 
vessels  unto  honor  and  the  Gentiles  should  be 
made  vessels  unto  dishonor.  Of  the  lump 
even  of  Jewish  humanity  God  may  make 
vessels  unto  dishonor.  In  determining  which 
vessels  to  make,  he  does  not  act  arbitrarily  or 
without  reason,  for  his  attributes  always  act 
in  harmony,  and  his  power  is  ever  the  servant 
of  his  goodness,  justice,  and  wisdom.  Paul 
certainly  would  not  regard  it  as  a  complete 
description  of  man  to  saj'  that  he  is  a  lump  of 
clay;  but  when  one  makes  high  pretensions, 
puts  on  airs,  talks  of  merit,  and  lays  claims, 
then  the  apostle  would  take  down  his  pride 
and  feeling  of  self-sufficiency  by  assuring  him 
that  he  is  but  clay  in  the  hands  of  the  potter. 
Let  us  be  thankful  that  God  can  take  us  from 
the  lump  and  mass  of  perdition  and  mould  us 
into  vessels  of  glory.  We  are  not  a  mere  clod 
of  inert  an.d  senseless  clay;  but  it  would  be 
well  for  us  to  resign  ourselves  submissively 


1  'The  same  lump.'    Notice  the  position  of  the  article.  I  ilself.    On  the  "one  part"  and  "another"  (of  the  Re- 
If  it  came  after  auToO,  the  phrase  would  mean  the  lump  I  vised  Version),  see  Winer,  p.  105, 


234 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  IX. 


22  \nal  if  God,  willing  to  shew  his  wrath,  and  to 
make  his  power  known,  endured  with  much  longsuifer- 
ing  the  vessels  of  wrath  fitted  to  destruction  ; 

23  And  that  he  luiKht  make  known  the  riches  of  his 
glory  on  the  vessels  of  mercy,  which  he  had  afore  pre- 
pared unto  glory, 


22  unto  dishonour?  What  if  God,  'willing  to  shew 
his  wrath,  and  to  make  his  power  known,  endured 
with  much  longsuflfering  vessels  of  wrath  fitted  unto 

23  destruction;  2 and  that  he  might  make  known  the 
riches  of  his  glory  upon  vessels  of  mercy,  which  he 


1  Or,  although  willing 2  Some  ancient  authorities  omit  and. 


into  the  hands  of  God,  as  clay  in  the  hands  of 
a  potter,  that  he  may  mould  us  (how  easily  !) 
into  vessels  of  honor.] 

22,  23.  [What  (or,  but)  if,  etc.,  seems  to 
introduce  the  answer  to  the  objector's  ques- 
tion. De  Wette  thinks  that  Paul  in  these 
verses  had  special  reference  to  the  Egyptians 
and  the  Israelites  in  Egypt.  But,  as  Godet 
says,  Paul  has  done  with  Pharaoh  long  ago. 
Philippi,  however,  supposes  at  least  a  side 
glance  at  Pharaoh.]  There  is  some  difBoulty 
in  the  construction  here,  arising  partly  from 
its  irregularity,  and  partly  from  the  brevity 
and  incompleteness  of  the  expression.  The 
following  paraphrase  may  help  to  the  right 
understanding  of  the  sense:  'What  ground 
of  objection  is  there,  or  what  fault  can  be 
found  with  the  divine  procedure  [what  adverse 
reply  shall  we  make  to  God?  (ver. 20)],  if  God, 
while  purposing  (9e\C>v,  wishing)  to  show  his 
just  severity  and  Almighty  power  upon  those 
who  deserved  his  displeasure,  and  were  alto- 
gether fitted  for  perdition,  yet  endured  them 
with  much  long-suffering  before  he  inflicted 
punishment  upon  them;  and,  on  the  other 
hand,  purposed  to  show  [what  if  God  willed 
to  make  known?]  his  rich  and  glorious  mercy 
to  those  who  were  to  be  partakers  of  his  com- 
passion, and  whom  he  had  already  prepared 
for  salvation?'  Surely  there  is  nothing  to 
complain  of  in  alf  this.  [While  the  margin  of 
the  American  Kevised  Version — with  Meyer, 
Philippi,  Godet,  and  others — supplies  an  al- 
though before  the  participle  'willing,'  thus 
giving  emphasis  to  the  long-suffering,  De 
Wette  prefixes  si7ice  or  because,  and  says  that 
God  bore  with  Pharaoh,  and  did  not  at  once 
annihilate  him,  in  order  the  more  to  show  his 
wrath  and  his  power  in  him.  Some  (Meyer, 
Pliilippi,  Godet)  regard  this  as  a  strange  kind 
of  long-suffering,  the  design  of  which,  accord- 


ing to  Weiss,  was  "to  lead  them  to  repent- 
ance." Yet  the  words  referring  to  Pharaoh, 
'for  this  very  purpose  have  I  raised  thee  up,' 
"make  it  certain  that  when  St.  Paul  writes, 
'God,  willing  to  show,'  he  means,  because  he 
willed."  ("Bible  Commentary.")  And  cer- 
tainly sinners  can  abuse  God's  long-suffering 
to  the  enhancing  of  their  condemnation. 
Winer,  De  Wette,  and  Meyer  regard  the 
phrase  that  he  might  make  known  as 
directly  dependent  on  the  verb  endured, 
giving  this  idea:  "He  endured  these  vessels 
of  wrath,  not  only  (or,  as  Mej-er  would  have 
it,  notwithstanding  his  desire)  to  show  his 
wrath  and  make  his  power  known,  but  also 
(by  delaying  punishment)  to  make  known 
the  riches  of  his  glory,"  etc.  Others — like 
Philippi,Godet,Stuart— would  supply  another 
if  ivilling  (ei  Oehiav)  at  the  beginning  of  ver.  23, 
and  regard  'that  ho  might  make  known'  as 
equivalent  to  and  co-ordinate  with  the  infini- 
tive 'to  make  known'  (ywopiVai)  of  the  pre- 
ceding verse.  The  former  give  this  render- 
ing: "What  if  God,  willing  to  make  known 
the  riches  of  his  glory  (called  us),"  for  which 
parenthetic  clause  Paul  substitutes  '  whom  he 
hath  called.'  Prof.  Stuart  would  supply: 
Had  mercy  on  us,  or,  made  known  his  rich 
grace  toward  us,  etc.]^ 

Observe  that  he  speaks  of  the  vessels  of 
wrath  as  fitted  to  destruction,  and  of  the 
vessels  of  mercy  which  he  had  afore  pre- 
pared unto  glory.  God's  agency  in  the  case 
of  these  last  is  direct,  positive,  effective.  And 
who  these  are  he  tells  us  in  the  next  verse. 
[De  Wette,  Meyer,  Philippi,  Alford,  Stuart, 
think  this  fitting  for  destruction  is  eflTected, 
according  to  the  apostle's  representation,  by 
the  agency  of  God.  But  Paul  certainly  avoids 
making  such  express  representation,  and  we 
therefore   may  refrain   from   so  doing.     Dr. 


'  Our  own  preference  also  would  be  to  supply  some 
form  of  6eAio,  but  as  although  wiUing  would  in  this  case 
be  inadmissible,  we  must  so  regard  it  in  the  former. 
To  JuvaToi'  {power)  corresponds  with  &vvay.i.v,  ver.  17. 
See  a&vva.Tov,  8:3.  The  word  'vessels'  in  both  verses 
IS  destitute  of  the  article,  but  it  may  be  inserted  in  the 


translation,  especially  in  the  latter  instance.  The  rela- 
tive '  which  '  in  our  Common  Version  (properly  whom), 
though  referring  to  a  neuter  noun,  'vessels,'  is  here 
masculine,  either  by  a  constructio  ad  senstim,  or,  more 
probably  by  attraction  to  the  following  ^Mas,  us.— (F.) 


Ch.  IX.] 


ROMANS. 


235 


24  Even  us,  whom  he  hath  called,  not  of  the  Jews  |  24  afore  prepared  unto  glory,  even  us,  whom  he  also 
only,  but  al.so  of  the  Gentiles?  called,  not    from  the  Jews  only,  hut  also  from  the 

25  As  he  saith  also  in  Usee,  1  will  call  them  my  peo-    25  Gentiles?     As  he  sailh  also  iu  llosea, 

pie,  which  were  not  my  people;  and  her  beloved,  which  I  will  call  tliat  my  people  which  was  not  my  people; 

was  not  beloved.  I  And  her  beloved,  who  was  not  beloved. 


Gifford  says  that  "both  factors,  God's  proba- 
tionary judgments  and  man's  perverse  will, 
conduce  to  the  result,  and  it  is  the  result  only 
that  is  here  expressed."  Still,  had  this  been 
spoken  of  as  a  divine  result,  we  could  only 
say,  that  as  God  hardened  Pharaoh  when  he 
hardened  himself,  so  he  fits  men  for  perdition 
when  they  are  fitting  themselves  for  it.  The 
Gentiles,  as  we  learn  in  1  :  24,  26,  28,  gave 
themselves  up  to  iniquity,  and  God  gave  them 
up  to  a  reprobate  mind.  That  sinners  do  fit 
themselves  as  vessels  destined  for  wrath  is 
most  plainlj'  aflSrmed  in  the  Scriptures.  See 
2:4;  1  Thess.  2:16,  seq.  And  certainly  God 
would  not  efficiently,  and  could  not  of  his 
"good  pleasure,"  prepare  the  vessels  of  wrath 
which  are  so  displeasing  to  him.  As  Olshau- 
sen  says:  '^ The  hear\ug  with  much  long-suf- 
fering will  not  accord  with  the  prominence 
thus  given  to  the  divine  activity.  There  is 
something  not  only  discordant  but  absolutely 
contradictory  in  the  idea  that  God  endures 
with  much  long-suffLTing  what  he  has  himself 
prepared."  Four  striking  differences  of  rep- 
resentation are  thus  noticed  by  Godet:  "I. 
The  preposition  n-po  (beforehand)  is  wanting 
in  the  participle  (fitted).  Compare  ver.  22. 
II.  There  the  passive  form  instead  of  the 
active  used  here.  (ver.  2.'!.)  III.  Here  the 
aorist  referring  to  the  eternal  act,  as  in  8  :  29, 
instead  of  the  perfect  (ver.22),  which  denotes 
the  present  fact.  IV.  Here  the  verb  ^jj-epare, 
which  indicates  the  beginning  of  the  develop- 
ment, instead  of  that  of  ver.  22,  which  indi- 
cates result.  These  four  diflferences  are  not 
accidental,  and  leave  no  doubt  as  to  the  apos- 
tle's view."  To  i&kQ  fitted  here  in  the  sense 
oi  fit  is  unwarrantable.  We  remark,  that  as 
tliese  vessels  of  mercy  are  actually  existing 
sinners  who,  though  penitent,  have  by  their 
sins  made  themselves  objects  of  divine  pity 
and  have  received  divine  grace,  and  as  the 
vessels  of  wrath  are  actually  existing  sinners 
who,  by  their  persistent  wickedness,  have 
made  themselves  objects  of  the  divine  dis- 
pleasure (to  whom,  however,  God  does  not 
wish  to  show  the  riches  of  his  wrath),  so  the 
apostle  has  not  here  spoken  of  God's  original 
creating  act  or  purpose  in  either  case.] 


24.  Even  us,  whom  he  hath  called,  etc. 
[See  Eph.  2 :  10.]  See  also  the  analysis  at  the 
close  of  ver.  13.  Two  things  are  made  plain 
in  the  preceding  passage:  1.  That  the  election 
here  spoken  of  is  to  eternal  life,  and  not 
I  merely  to  outward  privileges.  2.  That  it  is 
I  sovereign  and  absolute,  and  not  based  on  the 
ground  of  foreseen  choice  or  merit  on  the  part 
of  man.  ['The  vessels  of  niercy'  (election) 
spoken  of  in  the  last  verse  are  here  explained 
as  meaning  'us  whom  he  hath  called.'  In- 
stead of  which,  referring  to  its  antecedent, 
vessels,  we  have  the  ma.sculine  pronoun 
'whom,'  agreeing,  by  attraction,  with  'us' 
(was)  in  the  subordinate  clause.  According 
to  the  teaching  of  8 :  29, 30,  the  called  ones  here 
are  those,  not  only  from  the  Jews,  but  also 
from  the  Gentiles,  whom  God  foreknew  and 
predestined  to  be  his.  As  we  understand  these 
three  last  verses,  the  reasoning  of  the  apostle 
is  virtually  this:  What  if  God  has  willed  to 
pass  by  the  great  mass  of  unbelieving  and 
rebellious  Jews  and  to  call  his  elect  ones 
principally  from  the  Gentiles,  who  shall  find 
fault  with  God  for  so  doing?  Calvin  well 
remarks  that  "the  grace  of  God  is  not  so  con- 
fined to  the  Jewish  people  that  it  cannot  flow 
forth  to  other  nations  and  to  the  whole  world, 
nor  is  it  so  obligated  to  the  Jews  that  it  must 
reach  all  the  sons  of  Abraham  according  to 
the  flesh  without  exception."  These  elect 
Gentiles  are  Christ's  "other  sheep"  which 
are  not  of  the  Jewish  fold  (JoumoMS),  and  that 
God  should  call  them  to  be  his  people,  and 
should  gather  them  within  the  Messianic  fold, 
is,  as  the  apostle  goes  on  to  show,  but  a  fulfill- 
ment of  the  Old  Testament  prophecies.] 

The  remainder  of  this  chapter  is  taken  up 
with  confirming  the  foregoing  doctrine  by 
testimonies  from  the  prophets. 

25,  26.  As  he  saith  also  in  Osee,  etc. 
Both  the  quotations  are  from  Hosea,  the  first 
from  2 :  23,  the  second  from  1  :  10  [in  the  He- 
brew, 2 :  25].  They  were  originally  said  of  the 
apostate  [and  heathenized]  tribes  of  Israel, 
but  are  applicable  to  the  Gentiles  as  well. 
[The  first  quotation  varies  somewhat  both 
from  the  Hebrew  and  the  Septuagint.  The 
negatived  substantives  not  my  people  and 


236 


KOMANS. 


[Ch.  IX. 


2(!  Anil  it  .shall  come  to  pass,  thai  in  the  place  where 
it  was  said  unto  them,  Ye  are  not  my  people;  there 
shall  lliev  he  called  the  children  of  the  living  God. 

27  Esaia.s  also  crieih  concerning  Israel,  'J  hou^'h  the 
number  of  the  children  ol  Israel  he  as  the  sand  of  the 
sea,  a  remnant  shall  he  saved  : 

28  For  he  will  finish  the  work,  and  cut  it  short  in 
righteousne,ss:  because  a  short  work  will  the  Lord 
xuake  upon  the  eurth. 

29  And  as  Esaias  said  before,   Except  the  Lord  of 


26  And  it  shall  be,  ihat  in  the  place  where  it  was  said 
unto  them.  Ye  are  not  my  people. 

There  shall  they  be  called  sons  of  the  living  God. 

27  And  Isaiah  crieth  concerning  Israel,  If  the  number 
of  the  children  of  Israel  be  as  the  sand  of  the  sea, 

28  it  is  the  leuiuant  that  shall  be  saved:  for  the  Lord 
will  execute  hi.s  word   upon  the  earth,  finishing  it 

29  and  cutting  it  short.    And,  as  Isaiah  hath  said  before, 


not  beloved  are,  in  the  original,  represented 
to  be  the  names  of  two  of  Hosea's  children, 
which  names  were  given  them  to  symbolize 
the  rejection  of  the  liouse  of  Israel.  "I  will 
no  more  have  mercy  upon  the  house  of  Israel, 
.  .  .  but  I  will  have  mercy  upon  the  house 
of  Judah."  Yet  God's  mercy  was  not  to  be 
withheld  forever.  "For  in  the  place,"  etc. 
The  same  passage  is  cited  in  1  Peter  2:10.] 
The  use  of  the  feminine  pronoun  in  the  last 
part  of  ver.  25  is  explained  by  the  figurative 
representation,  so  common  in  the  prophets,  of 
the  Jewish  people  as  the  spouse  of  God,  and 
their  forsaking  of  him  as  conjugal  infidelity. 
The  place  where  it  was  said  unto  them, 
Ye  are  not  my  people  probably  refers,  not 
to  any  specific  place,  as  Palestine,  but,  in 
general,  wheresoever  their  apostasy  from  God 
has  been  known  and  spoken  of,  there  shall 
also  their  recovery  be  known  and  spoken  of. 

27,  28.  The  two  preceding  verses,  from 
Hosea's  prophecies,  show  that  those  were  to  be 
included  among  the  people  of  God  who  had 
heretofore  been  regarded  as  aliens;  the  two 
verses  now  before  us  show,  from  the  prophe- 
cies of  Isaiah,  that  the  Jews,  as  such,  were 
not  to  be  included  among  his  people  in  the 
coming  time.  Thus  ver.  25,  26  are  a  commen- 
tary on  the  last  clause  of  ver.  24,  '  but  also  of 
the  Gentiles,'  and  ver.  27,  28  on  the  clause 
immediately  preceding, 'not  of  the  Jews  only.' 
[Esaias  also.  Meyer,  regarding  the  word 
(6e)  translated  'also'  as  antithetic,  says  it 
"leads  over  to  another  prophet,"  and  para- 
phrases thus:  "  But /saiaA,  what  do  we  hear 
^rom  him?  We  hear  the  cry  respecting  Is- 
rael," etc.,  instead  of  Hosea,  speaking  of  the 
Gentiles.]  Crieth  concerning  Israel.  This 
verb  indicates  a  loud  and  impassioned  utter- 
ance. Compare  John  1  :  15;  7:28,37;  12:44; 
Acts  23  :  6;  24  :  21  [vnip  in  the  sense  of  jrept, 
concerning].  A  remnant  [v7roA«t|ui|iia  in  the 
Revised  text,  i/irdAifinto  in  Westcott  and  Hort] 
— that  is,  only  a  remnant  sh;ill  be  saved  [in 
the  Hebrew  shall  return,  as  from  exile],  the 


mass  of  the  people  being  rejected.  The  Rab- 
bins have  this  saying:  "Of  six  hundred  thou- 
sand persons  but  two  came  to  Canaan  ;  so  shall 
it  bo  in  the  days  of  the  Messiah."  The  quo- 
tation is  from  Isa.  10:22,  23  [and  is  slightly 
abbreviated  from  the  LXX.,  which  varies 
considerably  from  the  original  Hebrew. 
I  Meyer  sa3's :  "The  Seventy  did  not  under- 
stand these  words  and  translated  them  incor- 
rectly," yet  that  Paul  "felt  no  scruple  in 
abiding  by  their  translation,  with  a  few  unim- 
portant deviations,  since  the  sense  is  not  less 
suitable  than  that  of  the  original."  The 
language  of  Isaiah  is  commonly  supposed  to 
have  reference  to  a  political  deliverance  of  a 
remnant  of  Israel,  which  by  Paul  is  regarded 
as  a  symbol  of  moral  deliverance,  the  salva- 
tion of  an  elect  seed.  Comjjare  11  :  5.  The 
fate  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  has  reference  to 
something  worse  than  a  mere  temporal  and 
political  overthrow].  The  passage  may  be 
rendered :  For  he  is  finishing  and  abridging 
the  word  in  [punitive]  7-ighteousness,  because 
an  abridged  word  [a  word  of  swift  judgment] 
will  the  Lord  make  on  the  earth.  But  there 
is  a  briefer  reading  of  the  original,  which  is 
adopted  by  Lachmann,  Tischendorf,  Westcott 
and  Hcrt,  and  the  Revisers,  according  to 
which  the  translation  would  be:  The  Lord 
will  perform  his  word  upon  the  earth,  finish- 
ing it  and  cutting  it  short.  The  idea  is,  that 
the  Lord  will  execute  speedy  and  summary 
judgment,  according  to  his  word. 

29.  Esaias  said  before — that  is,  in  a  pre- 
ceding part  of  his  prophecies;  so  the  word 
seems  to  be  used  in  Gal.  1  : 9.  [Tholuck,  De 
Wetto,  Meyer,  Philippi,  and  Godet  prefer 
'  foretold '  (compare  2  Peter  3  :  2),  since  mere 
priority  of  place  in  writing  is  an  unimportant 
matter.]  These  words  here  cited  are  found  in 
chapter  1  :9  [and  are  cited  verbatim  from  the 
LXX.].  The  Lord  of  Sabaoth.  The  word 
'Sabaoth  '  [one  of  the  few  words  which  Paul, 
following  the  Seventj',  left  untranslated  ;  see 
"maranatha,"  1   Cor.  16:22]  means  'hosts' 


Ch.  IX.] 


ROMAN'S. 


237 


Sabaoth  had  left  us  a  seed,  we  had  been  as  Sodonia,  and 
been  made  like  unto  (ioinorrah. 

30  What  shall  we  say  then?  That  the  Gentiles, 
•which  followed  not  after  righteousness,  have  attained 
to  righteousness,  even  the  righteousness  which  is  of 
faith. 

31  But  Israel,  which  followed  after  the  law  of  right- 
eousness,  hath  not  attained  to  the  law  of  righteousness. 


Except  the  Lord  of  Sabaoth  had  left  us  a  seed. 
We  had  become  as  Sodom,  and  had  been  made  like 
unto  (jomorrah. 

30  What  shall  we  say  then?  That  the  (ientiles,  who 
followed  not  afier  righteousness,  attained  to  right- 
eousness, even  the  righteousness  which  is  of  I'aith: 

31  but  Israel,  following  after  a  law  of  righteousness, 


or  'armies.'  It  is  used  only  here  and  in 
James  5  :  4  in  the  New  Testament;  but  the 
expressions  "God  of  hosts''  and  "Lord  of 
hosts,"  where  the  same  Hebrew  word  is  used, 
are  frequent  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  repre- 
sent Gi)d  as  a  great  king,  having  mighty  armies 
under  his  command.  We  had  been  as  Sod- 
oma.  "Unless  the  Lord  had  left  us  a  rem- 
nant, as  a  seed,  to  preserve  us  alive,  we  should 
have  been  utterly  destroyed,  like  the  cities  of 
the  plain."  [On  this  verse  Scott  makes  the 
following  "practical  observations":  "Even 
among  the  vast  number  of  professing  Chris- 
tians it  is  to  be  feared  that  but  a  remnant  will 
be  saved."  Does  the  parable  of  the  virgins 
make  it  probable  that  only  one-half  of  Christ's 
disciples  will  be  found  truly  "wise"?  Would 
it  be  surprising  that  out  of  every  twelve 
gospel  ministers  one  should  be  finally  lost? 
"Many  will  say  to  me  in  that  day,"  etc.  See 
Alatt.  7  :  22.  The  fate  and  destiny  of  nations, 
as  well  as  individuals,  is  in  the  hands  of  God, 
and  we  may  well  fear  that  he  has  not  done 
dealing  in  righteousne.?s  with  us  as  a  people. 
Let  us  hope  and  i^ray  that  the  Lord  will  leave 
to  us  also  a  seed  of  true  believers  to  preserve 
our  land  from  becoming  as  Sodom  and  Go- 
morrah.] 

The  apostle  now  proceeds  to  state  the  con- 
clusion to  which  his  argument  has  thus  far 
brought  him.  [He  now  also  proceeds  to  ex- 
press fully  what  he  has  hitherto  referred  to 
cursorily — namely',  the  reception  of  the  Gen- 
tiles and  the  exclusion  of  the  Jews.] 

30.  That  the  Gentiles,  etc.  Some  regard 
this  as  a  question,  thus:  "  AVhat  shall  we  say 
to  the  fact  that,"  or,  "shall  we  say  that,"  etc. 
It  seems  proporl^'  to  be  an  answer  to  what 
shall  Ave  say  then  ?  ['Gentiles'  is  without 
the  article,  signifying,  according  to  Meyer 
(versus  De  Wette),  not  a  class,  but  some  of  a 
class.]  Which  followed  [mere  following] 
not  after  righteousness.  Who  were  not, 
as  the  Jews  were,  definitely  seeking  right- 
eousness by  their  own  legal  work.?.  Have 
attained,  etc.— not  being  hindered,  as  the 


Jews  were,  by  trusting  to  a  false  theory,  have 
believed  in  Christ,  and  so  obtained  the  right- 
eousness of  faith.  [Some  regard  'righteous- 
ness' here,  and  in  some  other  places,  as 
equivalentto  justification.  Itamounts,  indeed, 
nearly  to  the  same  thing,  and  yet  the  word 
used  {SLKaioavvri)  does  not  properly  signify  justi- 
fication. As  Dr.  Hodge  says:  "It  means 
righteousness,  the  possession  of  which  secures 
justification.  Justification  is  a  declarative  act 
of  God  ;  righteousness  is  the  ground  on  which 
that  declaration  is  made."  The  figure  used 
in  this  verse  is  that  of  the  race  course.  Com- 
pare '  follow  after '  (5i<i(ca>)  and  'apprehend' 
(/caraAo/oipofu)  in  Phil.  3:  12.  The  former  verb 
means  to  pursue,  and  when  with  hostile  intent, 
to  persecute.  Have  attained  to  (laid  hold 
on)  righteousness  (not  that  of  works),  but 
even  the  righteousness  which  is  of  (pro- 
ceeds from)  faith — without  protracted  and 
painful  endeavor,  like  the  man  who  found  a 
treasure  in  the  field  when  he  was  not  seeking 
it.  (Godet. )  Such  righteousness  as  this,  thus 
far  in  the  world's  historj-,  has  been  laid  hold 
on  only  by  individual  believers,  not  bj'  na- 
tions as  a  whole.] 

31.  But  Israel,  which  followed  (liter- 
aUy,  following)  after,  etc.  The  (a)  law  of 
righteousness  —  not  here  the  righteousness 
of  the  law,  but  a  law  imparting  righteousness, 
a  justifjMng  law.  [Thesccoiid  'righteousness' 
('n  our  Common  Version)  is  wanting  in  nearly 
all  the  older  manuscripts,  and  is  omitted  in 
the  Revised  Version,  but  seems  quite  neces- 
sary. The  apostle  frankly  concedes  that  the 
Jews  eagerly  sought  after  a  justifying  right- 
eousness, and  this  testimony  is  abundantly 
confirmed  by  the  writings  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, of  Josephus,  of  the  Targums,  etc.  In- 
deed, Paul  himself  knew  something  about 
this  earnest  pursuit,  from  personal  experience. 
The  verb  'attain,'  primarily  meant,  to  come 
first  or  before  another,  to  anticipate;  see  1 
Thess.  4:  15.  This  verse  serves  as  a  comment 
on  ver.  16:  "Not  of  him  that  runneth."] 
They  who  had  not  been  seeking  righteousness 


238 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  IX. 


32  Wherefore?  Because  they  sought  it  not  by  faith, 
but  as  it  were  by  thf  works  of  the  law.  For  they 
stumbled  at  that  stuujblingslone  ; 

:^;i  As  it  is  written,  Behold,  I  lay  in  Zion  a  stuni- 
blingstone  and  rock  of  otience:  and  whosoever  be- 
lieveth  oc  him  shall  not  be  ashamed. 


32  did  not  arrive  at  that  law.    Wherefore?    i  Because 
they  sought  it  not  by  faith,  but  as  it  were  by  works. 

33  They  stumbled  at  the  stone  of  stumbling ;  even  as 
it  is  written, 

Behold,  I  lay  in  Zion  a  stone  of  stumbling  and  a 

ruck  of  ottence : 
And  he  that  believeth  on  -  him  shall  not  be  put  to 

shame. 


1  Or,  because,  doing  it  not  hy  faith,  hut  as  it  were  by  works,  they  stumbled 2  Or,  it. 


found  it;  and  they  who  were  seeking  failed 
to  find.  An  anomaly  which  calls  for  expla- 
nation :  the  explanation  is  at  hand. 

32.  Wherefore?  Why  was  this  failure 
of  the  Jews?  For  what  reason  did  they  fail 
to  attain  what  they  sought?  ["The  Five 
Clergymen"  give  this  rendering:  Where- 
fore? Because  (following  after  it)  not  by 
faith,  but  as  by  the  ivorks  of  the  law,  they 
stumbled,  etc.  See  margin  of  the  Revised 
Version.]  It  was  because  they  souglit  it  not 
by  faith,  but  as  if  it  were  attainable  by  the 
works  of  the  law.  ['By  faith'  denotes  the 
objective  standard,  as  from  works,  the  purely 
imaginary.  (Winer.)  The  Revision  omits 
the  word  'law,'  which  is  wanting  inX*AB 
F  G,  the  Vulgate  and  several  Fathers.]  The 
verb  'sought'  which  is  not  in  the  original,  is 
rightly  supplied  from  ver.  31,  where,  how- 
ever, it  is  translated  'followed  after.'  For 
[wanting  in  N»  A  B  D«  F  G]  they  stumbled 
at  that  stuniblingstone,  of  which  the 
prophet  Isaiah  speaks.  [The  'stumbling' 
keeps  up  the  figure  of  the  race.  Why  does 
not  Paul  say  :  They  stumbled  at  or  because 
of  God's  eternal  decree?  Instead  of  this,  he 
here  seems  to  forget  all  that  he  has  just  said 
about  predestination  and  hardening,  and  now 
speaks  only  of  human  activity  and  blame- 
worthiness, doing  this,  too,  as  though  he  were 
not  flatly  contradicting  himself!  ^  Alford 
spoke  truly  when  he  said:  "We  shall  find 
free  will  asserted  strongly  enough  for  all  edi- 
fying purposes  by  this  apostle  when  the  time 
comes."  Our  natural  preference,  of  course, 
would  be  to  have  the  two  views  combined  and 
reconciled.  They  are  at  least  closely  united 
in  Acts  13:  46-48,  a  passage  which  states  the 
results  of  Paul's  first  recorded  sermon :  "See- 
ing ye  judge  yourselves  unworthy  of  eternal 


life  ....  and  as  many  as  were  ordained  to 
eternal  life  believed."  This  does  not  read  as 
though  foreordination  and  liberty  of  choice 
were,  as  has  been  thousands  of  times  declared, 
incompatible  and  contradictory.] 

The  last  clause  of  this  verse  might  well 
have  been  joined  to  the  following. 

33.  As  it  is  written,  etc.  The  apostle 
here  joins  two  passages.  (isa.  28:  le;  s:  u.) 
Christ  was  laid  in  Zion  for  "a  precious  corner 
stone,  a  sure  foundation,"  according  to  the 
former  of  these  two  passages ;  but  he  becomes, 
according  to  the  latter,  a  stumblingstone 
and  rock  of  offence  to  those  who  reject  him 
in  their  unbelief.  [The  apostle  does  not  in 
this  verse  follow  the  Seventy.  "Instead  of 
giving  to  the  stone  the  laudatory  epithets 
applied  in  Isa.  28:  16,  he  gives,  out  of  Isa.  8: 
14,  the  well-known  adjuncts  of  'stumbling' 
and  'offence'  and  then  returns  to  28:  16." 
(Davidson.)  Paul  wishes  to  tell  here  what 
Christ  is  to  unbelievers.  Compare  Luke  20: 
17,  18.  Both  passages  are  quoted  in  1  Peter 
2  :  6,  seq.)  The  '  ofl^ence,'  is  properly  the  trap- 
stick  which  holds  the  bait,  and  which,  when 
touched,  springs  the  trap:  hence  a  snare  laid 
for  an  enemy,  and,  with  a  moral  reference, 
any  cause  of  falling.  The  'every  one'  (t«) 
is  omitted  from  the  Revision  text,  but  all 
manuscripts  give  it  in  10:  11.  The  preposi- 
tion (e'jri)  with  'believe'  denotes  reliance  on. 
See  notes  on  3:  25.  The  Hebrew  for  'shall 
be  ashamed'  is  to  'flee  away,'  as  in  terror. 
Paul  here  follows  the  Seventy.] 

This  last  section  (ver.  30-33)  teaches  us  that 
the  attempt,  through  a  false  theory,  to  make 
ourselves  righteous  in  a  way  of  our  own,  may 
be  a  greater  hindrance  to  our  salvation,  than 
open  wickedness  and  vice;  and  herein  it 
agrees  with  our  Lord's  saying  in  Matt.  21 :  31. 


1  "  Paul  would  have  agreed  better  with  himself  if  he  I  only  the  "  moral  self-determii.ation  and  spontaneity  " 
had  been  a  pupil  of  Aristotle  instead  of  Gamaliel."  '  of  man,  a  creature  in  a  universe  created  and  governed 
(Frifzsche.)  But  truth  demanded  the  presentation  of  1  by  the  eternal.  Almighty,  and  Omniscient  One,  who 
both  views,  whether  he  could  reconcile  them  or  not.  j  could  have  held  that  to  be  a  correct  representation? 
Had  he  merely  presented  one  side  and  brought  to  view  1  — (F.) 


Ch.  X.] 


ROMANS. 


239 


CHAPTER  X. 


BRETHREN,  my  heart's  desire  and  prayer  to  God  for 
Israul  is,  that  they  miglit  be  saved. 
2  For  I  bear  them   recoril  that  they  have  a  zeal  of 
God,  but  not  according  to  Icuowledge. 


1      Bretliren,  my  heart's 'desire  and  my  siipplicatioi; 

'i  to  <iod  is  fur  tlieui,  that  they  may  be  saved.     For  I 

bear  them  wituess  that  they  have  a  zeal  for  God,  but 


1  Gr.  good  pleasure. 


Ch.  10  :  f"  Isniel's  Guilt"  (Olshausen),  or, 
more  fully  :  The  rejection  of  tlie  Jews  is  owing 
t',<  their  unbelief.] 

The  subject  introduced  in  the  last  four  verses 
of  the  preceding  chapter — namely,  the  failure 
of  the  Jews  to  attain  to  righteousness,  and  the 
reason  of  that  failure,  is  continued  in  this 
chapter,  after  the  apostle  has  expressed  his 
earnest  desire  for  their  salvation,  and  his 
appreciation  of  their  religious  zeal,  as  he  had 
previously  expressed  his  apj>rociation  of  their 
distinguished  privileges.     (9:4,5.) 

1.  Brethren.  This  word  might  be  regarded 
as  addressed,  in  a  national  sense,  to  the  unbe- 
lieving Jews,  and  so  regarded,  it  would  agree 
with  many  precedents  in  the  use  of  the  word 

by  Paul  (Acts  13:  '26,38;  2?:  1;  23:  1,6;  28:  17;  Rom.  9:  3), 

and  would  be  an  example  of  his  kind  feelings 
toward  them;  but  in  this  connection,  as  a 
direct  address,  it  is  more  suitably  referred  to 
those  Christian  readers  to  wh<jm  the  Epistle  is 
addressed.  Still,  its  occurrence  here,  where 
it  is  not  called  for  to  complete  the  sense,  is 
naturally  explained  by  the  strong  emotion 
which  the  subject  referred  to  always  excited 
in  the  mind  of  the  apostle,  and  of  which  we 
have  a  signal  example  in  the  beginningof  the 
previous  chapter.  The  word  translated  fZcsir^ 
is  an  emphatic  word,  expressive  of  earnest, 
benevolent  desire,  and  is  usually  translated 
"good  will,"  or  "good  pleasure."     (Luke2:  u; 

Eph.  1:    5,9;    Phil.  1 :    15;   2:    13;    2  Thess.  1:    11. )1      [And 

prayer  to  God — literally.  And  the  prayer  to 
God.  The  article  before  praj^er  is  equivalent 
to  the  personal  pronoun  my.  The  word  for 
prayer  (SeV?)  has  the  force  of  entreaty  arising 
from  a  sense  of  want.  Like  our  2^^tition,  it 
may  be  addressed  to  men,  while  the  more 
usual  word  for  prayer  (rrpoo-cux'?)  has  a  sacred 
character,  and  "is  always  prayer  to  God." 
(Trench.)]  For  Israel.  For  them  seems 
to  be  the  true  reading.  The  persons  referred 
to  had  been  so  recently  mentioned,  and  were 
so  prominent  in  the  apostle's  mind,  that  the 


pronoun  was  sufficiently  plain.  That  they 
might  be  saved — literally, /or  Srt/i-rt^ton,  the 
pronoun  "their"  being  understood.  [The 
apostle  obviously  felt  the  salvation  of  men  to 
be  an  infinitely  important  matter,  or  he 
would  not  have  sought  for  it  with  that  inten- 
sity of  desire,  amounting  even  to  an  unceasing 
anguish  of  heart,  which  led  him,  to  whom 
Christ  was  more  than  all  the  universe  besides, 
to  wish  that  he  might  be  "anathema"  from 
his  Saviour,  provided  this  could  but  secure 
their  salvation.  But  we  somewhat  demur  at 
Bengel's  observation  that  "Paul  would  not 
thus  have  prayed  had  they  been  absolutely 
reprobated."  For  Paul  has  reference  here  to 
whole  peoples,  and  has  nothing  to  do  with 
the  fate  of  particular  individuals.  The  repro- 
bation of  these  does  not  argue  the  rejection 
of  the  nation.  Besides,  as  Dr.  Shedd  remarks : 
"The  Christian,  in  his  ignorance  of  the  divine 
purpose,  must  pray  for  all,  in  order  to  pray 
for  any."  Must  we  not  think  the  apostle's 
interest  in  the  spiritual  welfare  of  the  Jews 
was  something  wonderful  and  Christ-like, 
considering  all  the  trouble  and  harm  he  had 
experienced  from  their  opposition,  their  plots, 
and  their  lying  in  wait?] 

2.  For  introduces  the  reason  whj'  he  thus 
S3mipathizes  with  their  efforts,  though  misdi- 
rected. They  have  a  zeal  of  God.  In 
such  connections  as  this,  'of  is  used  where 
we  should  say/o?-,  as  "zealous  of  the  law" 
(Aots2i:2o),  "zealous  of  the  traditions  of  my 
fathers"  (Gai.i:u),  "the  zeal  of  thine  house" 
(John 2:  17).  The  Jews,  as  a  people,  were  zeal- 
ous religionists,  but  not  according  to 
knowledge.  They  had  zeal  enough,  if  it 
had  been  rightly  informed  and  directed,  to 
secure  their  salvation.  [Their  zeal  was  not 
such  as  results  from  full  knowledge.  "  When 
Paul  says,  'I  bear  them  witness.'  he  seems  to 
be  alluding  to  his  conduct  of  other  days,  and 
to  say :  I  knowsomethingof  it— of  that  zeal !  " 
(Godet.)     This,  their  zeal  for  God  and  his 


iThe  li-iv^    untranslated,  has  no    corresponding    6e  I  heart's  good  will,  etc.,  is  for  one  thing,  while  they  have 
(but),  yet  this  is  virtually  contained  in  ver.  3.    My'  been  seeking  another,— (F.) 


240 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  X. 


3  For  they,  being  ignorant  of  God's  righteousness, 
and  going  about  to  establisli  iheir  own  righteousness, 
have  not  submitted  theiusulves  unto  the  righteousness 
of  God. 

4  For  Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law  for  righteousness 
to  every  one  that  be'ieveth. 


3  not  according  to  knowledge.  For  being  ignorant  of 
God's  righteousness,  and  seeking  to  establish  their 
own,  they  did  not  sutiject  themselves  to  the  right- 

4  eousness  of  God.  For  Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law 
unto    righteousness  to  every  one    that    believeth. 


law,  is  amply  witnessed  by  Philo  and  Jo- 
sephus.  See  Tholuck's  "Commentary."  So 
our  Saviour,  in  Matt.  23:  15,  speaks  of  their 
zeal  in  making  proselytes.  The  Pharisees 
were  the  orthodox  Jews  of  their  day,  and  had 
a  reputation  for  pre-eminent  sanctity.  And 
probably  no  word  our  Lord  ever  spoke  was 
so  astounding  as  that  utterance  of  his  in 
Matt.  5:  20:  "E.vcept  your  righteousness 
shall  exceed  the  righteousness  of  the  scribes 
and  Pharisees !  "  Fiacius,  as  quoted  in  Bengel, 
says:  "The  Jews  had,  and  have,  a  zeal  with- 
out knowledge;  we,  on  the  contrary,  alas! 
have  knowledge  without  zeal."  ^]  Keligious 
indifference  is  always  inexcusable,  but  relig- 
ious zeal,  when  ill-informed  and  misdirected, 
may  be  just  as  disastrous  in  its  results,  so  false 
and  dangerous  is  the  maxim  that  "it  matters 
little  what  a  man's  belief  is,  if  he  is  only  sin- 
cere." The  apostle  immediate!}'  proceeds  to 
point  out  what  their  mistake  was;  and  it  was 
no  uncommon  one. 

3.  [For  they  being  ignorant.  'For' 
shows  their  lack  of  clear  ajiprehension.  Al- 
ford's  rendering,  7iot  recognizing,  implies  that 
they  were  not  absolutely  lacking  of  informa- 
tion.] The  expressions  God's  righteous- 
ness and  'the  righteousness  of  God'  mean 
God's  way  of  making  sinful  men  righteous,  and 
accepting  them  as  such  according  to  the  fuller 
explanation  of  this  term  given  in  the  notes  on 
1:  17.  [So  "Winer:  "The  righteousness  of 
God  denotes  righteousness  which  God  itn parts; 
compare  Phil.  8:  9,  'The  righteousness  from 
God.'"]  Going  about.  This  is  an  old  En- 
glish expression  which  means,  simply,  "seek- 
ing," or  "endeavoring."  The  Greek  verb, 
which  means  to  seek,  is  repeatedly  translated 
as  above.  (John  7 :  19, 20;  Acta  '.i :  31.)  Their  own 
righteousness.  A  righteousness  devised 
and  wrought  by  themselves,  the  fruit  of  their 
own  works.  Compare  Phil.  3  :  9.  Have  not 
submitted  themselves  unto  the  right- 
eousness of  God.  This  '  righteousne.ss  of 
God'  is  not  only  something  offered  to  us  as  a 
free  gift,  but  also  something  required  of  us  as 
a  divine  obligation.     Not  to  submit  to  it,  not 


to  comply  with  God's  ordinance,  by  a  personal 
and  practical  acceptance  of  it,  which  always 
involves  the  discarding  of  our  own  righteous- 
ness, is  not  only  an  inexcusable  mistake,  but 
a  fatal  sin.  •  [The  Greek  means,  "Did  not  sub- 
mit, or  subject,  themselves."  Alford,  however, 
renders  it,  "were  not  subjected."  It  is  used 
in  the  same  sense  in  8  :  20.  To  submit  to 
God's  righteousness  supposes  some  self-denial 
on  the  part  of  those  who  would  set  up  their 
own  righteousness,  some  humbling  of  natural 
pride  and  feeling  of  self-sufficiency ;  supposes, 
consequently',  a  deep  sense  of  one's  need,  ill 
desert,  and  lo.st  condition.  But  to  receive 
Christ,  the  end  of  the  law  for  righteousness,  is 
the  only  way  in  which  the  righteous  require- 
ment of  the  law  can  be  fulfilled  in  us.  Yet 
thousands  on  thousands  of  zealous  religionists 
are  at  this  very  moment  seeking,  making  it, 
as  it  were,  their  occupation  to  establish  their 
own  righteousness,  which  is  but  self-right- 
eousness, and  altogether  imperfect;  and,  as  a 
ground  of  justification,  utterly  worthless  in 
the  sight  of  God.  Paul  shows  us  here,  and 
throughout  this  chapter,  that  the  casting  away 
of  the  Jews  was  owing  to  their  own  fault,  their 
unbelief.  They  did  not  submit  to  the  right- 
eousness of  God  ;  they  did  not  obey  the  gospel 
(ver.  16)  ;  they  thrust  from  themselves  the  word 
of  God,  and  judged  themselves  unworthy  of 
eternal  life.  Having  done  this,  they  are 
given  up  of  God  to  hardness  of  heart.  But 
the  next  chapter  shows  us  that  the  casting 
away,  or  rejection,  of  the  Jewish  people  was 
to  be  but  temporary',  while,  at  the  same  time, 
God  would  overrule  it  to  a  blessed  result,  the 
opening  of  the  door  of  faith  to  the  Gentiles.] 
4.  Christ  is  the  end  of  the  Ibav — is  the 
object  at  which  the  law  aimed.  The  law,  if 
obeyed,  would  result  in  our  becoming  right- 
eous before  God,  enjoying  his  favor,  and 
securing  eternal  happiness.  This  is  its  end 
and  aim.  But  having  been  once  disobeyed, 
it  becomes  forever  incapable  of  bringing  us 
to  this  end.  But  Christ  comes  in  and  infalli- 
bly secures  these  lesults  for  all  who  believe  in 
him.     He  is,  therefore,  to  all  such,  'the  end 


iThe  word  iri\ov  is  a  media  vox,  a  word  used  in  both  a  good  and  a  bad  sense.    Compare  13:  13.— (F.) 


Ch.  X.] 


ROMANS. 


241 


5  For  Moses  describeth  the  righteousness  which  is 
of  the  law,  That  the  uian  which  doeth  those  luiugs 
shall  live  hy  theiu. 

6  But  the  righteousness  which  is  of  faith  speaketh 


5  For  Moses  writeth   that  the  man  that  doeth  the 
righteousness  which  is  of  the  law  shall  live  thereby. 

6  But  the  righteousness  which  is  of  faith  saith  thus, 


of  the  law  for  righteousness.'  The  proof  of 
this  immediately  follows.  ["The  righteous- 
ness at  which  the  law  aims  is  accomplished 
in  Christ."  (Farrar. )  This  interpretation, 
favored  by  Alford  and  Stuart,  certainly  seems 
the  most  natural,  and  accords  with  the  use 
of  the  word  in  "the  end  of  the  command- 
ment," in  1  Tim.  1:  5.  Yet  most  modern 
interpreters  use  this  word  in  the  sense  of  end- 
ing, or  termination.  The  validity  of  the  law 
has  come  to  an  end  in  Christ  as  it  respects 
righteousness.  For  righteousness  —  either 
for  the  securing  of  righteousness,  or,  more 
generally,  as  it  relates  to  righteousness.] 

5.  For  Moses  describeth,  etc.  See  Lev. 
18:  5.  Paul  could  quote  no  higher  human 
authority  as  to  the  true  end  of  the  law  than 
that  of  Moses,  through  whom  the  law  was 
given.  [The  'for'  introduces  the  proof  of  the 
impossibility  of  securing  eternal  life  by  one's 
own  righteousness,  or  the  righteousness  of  the 
law.  The  Greek  text  literally  reads  thus: 
"  Moses  writeth  (concerning)  the  righteousness 
of  the  law  "  (compare  John  1  :  45) — literally, 
"  Concerning  whom  Moses  wrote,"  etc.  That 
the  man  which  doeth  those  things  shall 
live  by  them.  The  Kevisers'  text  (that  the 
man  who  has  done  the  righteousness  which  is 
of  the  law)  adopts  a  different  collocation  of 
the  words,  and,  instead  of  '  by  (in)  them,'  has 
'in  it,'  or  'tliereby,'  referring  to  righteousness. 
These  words  are  again  quoted  in  part  in  Gal. 
3  :  12,  "The  man  that  doeth  them  shall  live 
in  them."  As  Paul  was  unacquainted  with 
the  results  of  modern  Biblical  (destructive) 
criticism,  he  must  be  excused  for  ascribing  to 
Moses  the  authorship  of  Leviticus.]  'The 
man  which  doeth  those  things' — that  is,  who 
obeys  those  "statutes"  and  "judgments'' 
mentioned  in  the  same  verse  in  Leviticus — 
'shall  live  by  them,'  shall  obtain  the  true 
life,  the  favor  of  God,  and  eternal  happiness. 
This  shows  what  is  meant  by  '  the  end  of  the 
law.'  The  man  who  obej's  it,  universally^, 
perfectly,  constantly,  shall  be  saved,  or,  rather, 
shall  be  safe.  But  there  is  no  such  man  (ncci. 
':  20),  and  the  man  who  comes  short  of  this, 
in  any  particular,  is  justly  condemned.     (o«i. 

3:  10.) 


This  fifth  verse  describes  the  nature  of  the 
righteousness  of  the  law;  the  next  four  verses 
contrast  with  this  the  righteousness  of  faith, 
the  sixth  and  seventh  negatively,  and  the 
eighth  and  ninth  positively. 

6,  7.  [But  the  righteousness  which  is 
of  faith.  Dr.  Hodge  defines  this  righteous- 
ness as  that  which  is  received  by  faitii.  He 
maintains  that  "the  righteousness  which  con- 
sists in  faith  or  which  flows  from  faith  is  our 
own  righteousness."  But  this  is  not  necessa- 
rily the  case,  and  in  the  apostle's  teaching,  as 
wehaveseen,  faith  is  counted  as  righteousness.] 
Speaketh  on  this  wise.  The  quotation  is 
from  Deut.  30:  11,  12,  with  a  running  com- 
mentary by  the  apostle,  adapting  it  to  the 
facts  of  the  Christian  Dispensation.  [In  the 
passage  quoted,  Moses  primarily  is  speaking  of 
the  commandment,  or  law,  of  God,  and  it  is 
not  asserted  that  he  is  describing  the  right- 
eousness of  faith.  But  Paul,  personifj'ing 
this  righteousness,  puts  the  words  of  Moses 
into  its  mouth  as  being  more  appropriately 
uttered  by  it  than  by  the  law.  And,  as  Godet 
remarks,  "There  was  a  piquancy  in  thus 
replj'ing  to  Moses  by  Moses,  and  in  showing 
that  what  the  lawgiver  had  written  was  still 
more  true  of  the  gospel  than  of  the  law." 
Paul  evidently  here  clothes  his  thought  in 
Old  Testament  phraseolog}%  which  originally 
had  reference  to  another  subject,  altering  such 
phraseology  and  adapting  it  to  the  subject  in 
hand.  Observe,  in  proof  of  this,  his  frequent 
'that  is.'  A  notable  instance  of  such  appro- 
priation and  adaptation  may  be  seen  in  ver. 
18.  The  apostle  does  not  say  or  imply  that 
the  original  passage  had  "a  fundamental 
Messianic  reference"  (Philippi)or  that  Moses 
uttered  these  words  as  a  typical  prophetic 
description  of  the  righteousness  of  faith.  Yet 
he  might  well  regard  these  words  as  specially 
applicable  to  faith  in  him  who  is  the  end  of 
the  law,  and  to  the  commandment  to  believe 
in  him.  (Alford.)]  The  language  of  the 
righteousness  of  faith  does  not  make  salvation 
to  depend  upon  our  perfect  compliance  with 
a  set  of  rules,  many  and  various,  through  our 
whole  lives;  but  its  conditions  are  simple  and 
few.     We  are  not  required  to  begin  at  the 


242 


EOMANS. 


[Ch.  X. 


on  this  wise,  Say  not  in  thine  heart,  Who  shall  ascend 
into  heaven?  (that  is,  to  bring  Christ  down/row  above:) 

7  Or,  Who  shall  descend  into  the  deep?  (that  is,  to 
bring  up  Christ  again  from  the  dead.) 

8  But  what  saith  it?  The  word  is  nigh  thee,  even  in 
thy  mouth,  and  in  thy  heart :  that  is,  the  word  of  faith, 
which  we  preach ; 

9  That  if  thou  shalt  confess  with  thy  mouth  the  Lord 


Say  not  in  thy  heart,  Who  shall  ascend  into  heaven? 

7  (that  is,  to  bring  Christ  down  :)  or.   Who  shall  de- 
scend into  the  abyss?  (that  is,  to   bring  Christ  up 

8  from  the  dead.)     But  what  saith  it?    The  word  is 
nigh  thee,  in  thy  mouth,  and  in  thy  heart:  that  is, 

9  the  word  of  faith,  which  we  preach:   i because  it 
thou  shalt  2  confess  with  thy  mouth  Jesus  as  Lord, 


1  Or,  that 2  Some  ancient  authorities  real  confess  the  word  with  thy  mouth,  that  Jesus  is  Lord. 


beginning — to  go  up  to  heaven  in  search  of  a 
Saviour,  to  beg  him  to  come  down  and  help 
us;  nor  to  begin  in  the  middle — to  go  down 
to  the  grave,  and  induce  him  to  finish  his 
begun  work,  by  rising  from  the  dead  ;  but  the 
work  is  all  wrought  out  for  us,  "ordered  in 
all  things  and  sure"  (2Sam,  23:  5),  a  complete 
and  finished  salvation,  waiting  only  for  the 
act  of  faith  on  our  part  to  make  it  effectual. 
Unasked  and  unsought,  a  Saviour  has  come 
down  from  heaven,  died  for  our  sins,  risen  for 
our  justification,  ascended  to  heaven,  where  he 
ever  lives  to  intercede  for  us.  Now  follows 
the  positive  part  of  this  blessed  contrast  to 
the  righteousness  of  the  law.  [We  need  not, 
as  some  have  done,  regard  the  question  Who 
shall  ascend  into  heaven?  as  the  inquiry 
of  unbelief,  as  if  the  incarnation  of  Christ 
had  not  taken  place  and  was  an  impossi- 
bility. Paul  would  simply  affirm  that 
we  need  do  no  great  or  impossible  thing, 
that  a  .salvation  is  already  provided  and 
brought  home  to  each  individual,  and  that 
there  is  no  need  of  waiting;  a  Saviour  has 
come,  has  died,  has  arisen.  Nor  need  we  sup- 
pose that  the  query  has  reference  to  a  doubt 
whether  Chri.st  is  now  seated  at  the  right 
hand  of  God  in  heaven.  For  this  view  would 
ill  harmonize  with  the  question  which  follows, 
if  interpreted  on  the  same  principle,  who 
shall  descend  into  the  deep?  The  con- 
fession of  ver.  9  in  regard  to  the  res2irrectio7i 
shows  that  no  doubt  is  here  expressed  as  to 
the  fact  of  Christ's  death  or  of  his  descent  to 
hsdes.  This  last  query  in  the  original  Hebrew 
and  in  the  Septuagint  reads  thus:  '  "Who  will 
go  over  the  sea  for  us,'  but  Paul  changed 
'beyond  the  sea'  into  '  the  deep,'  in  order  to 
secure  a  more  direct  contrast  to  heaven,  and 
to  denote  the  place  of  the  dead,  whither  Christ 
descended  and  whence  he  rose.] 
8,  9.  But  what  saith  it?    It  saith:    The 


word  is  nigh^  thee,  etc.  Moses  saw  the  true 
righteousness,  not  as  a  distant  and  difficult 
thing,  fitr  off  in  heaven,  or  in  the  abyss,  or 
across  the  sea,  but  as  a  thing  that  was  near 
and  simple.  And  the  prophets  had  many 
glimpses  of  it  as  something  far  simpler,  and, 
at  the  same  time,  far  more  radical  than  ritual 
observances:  witness  Isa.  1:  11-20;  58:  3-9, 
and  notably  the  words  in  which  Micah  records 
the  answer  of  Balaam  to  the  questions  of 
Balak,  King  of  Moab.  (6:5-8.)  "If  you 
should  not  wish  to  cross  your  threshold,"  says 
Chrysostom,  "you  have  it  in  your  power  to 
be  saved  while  sitting  at  home ;  for  the  means 
of  salvation  are  in  thy  mouth  and  in  thy 
heart" — in  thy  mouth  to  confess,  and  in  thy 
heart  to  believe.  [To  the  words,  'in  thy 
mouth  and  in  thy  heart,'  the  Septuagint  adds : 
'and  in  thj'  hands.'  "  In  these  words,  Moses 
hud  in  a  sense,  without  suspecting  it,  given  the 
exact  formula  of  the  righteousness  of  faith." 
(Godet. )  In  this  representation  by  the  apos- 
tle we  have,  according  to  Philippi,  "a  holy 
and  charming  play  of  God's  Spirit  on  the 
words  of  the  Lord."  The  word  of  faith— 
the  word  which  "forms  the  substratum  and 
object  of  faith"  (Alford),  or  the  word  con- 
cerning faith  (Noyes),  or,  which  points  to 
faith.  (Boise.)  This  word  of  faith  which 
we  (Christian  ministers,  or  I,  Paul,)  pro- 
claim may  be  regarded  as  the  "word  of  God," 
or,  as  in  the  Kevision  text,  the  word  of  Christ.] 
If  thou  shalt  confess 2  with  (literally,  m) 
thy  mouth  the  Lord  Jesus.  [The  Revised 
Version  margin  gives  here  a  slightly  different 
reading,  which  Westcott  and  Hort  have  in- 
serted in  their  text.  The  Jii-st  word  of  the 
verse  (on)  if  rendered  'that,'  would  indicate 
that  this  verse  forms  the  substance  of  what  is 
preached;  if  rendered  'for'  or  'because' 
(Meyer,  Philippi),  it  shows  that  this  verse 
was  intended  to   justify  the  application   of 


1  The  word  iyyvs  (nigh),  properly  an  adverb,  is  here 
used,  like  some  other  adverbs,  as  a  prepo.sition,  followed 
by  (Tou  (thee),  what  we  may  call  the  genitive  of  place ; 
compare  13:  11.— (F.) 


2  The  aorist  subjunctive, '  if  (hou  shouldst  confess,' 
is,  in  conditional  sentences,  nearly  equivalent  to  the 
future.— (F.) 


Ch.  X.] 


ROMANS. 


243 


Jesus,  and  shalt  believe  in  thine  heart  that  God  hath 
raised  hiiu  from  the  dead,  thou  shalt  be  saved. 

10  For  with  the  lieart  luau  bclieveth  unto  righteous- 
ness; and  with  the  mouth  confession  is  made  unto 
salvation. 

11  For  the  Scripture  saith,  Whosoever  believeth  on 
him  shall  not  be  ashamed. 

12  For  there  is  no  difference  between  the  Jew  and 


and  shalt  believe  in  thy  heart  that  God  raised  him 

10  from   the  dead,  thou  shalt  he  saved:   for  with  the 
heart  man  believeth  unto  righteousness;  and  with 

11  the  mouth  eonfesfion  is  made  unto  salvation.     For 
the  scripture  saith,    Whosoever   believeth   on   him 

12  shall  not  be  put  to  shame.    For  there  is  no  distinc- 
tion between  Jew  and  Greek :  for  the  same  Lord  is 


the  Mosaic  dechirution  to  the  preaching 
of  faith.]  Confession  of  Christ  as  Lord 
with  the  mouth  will,  if  sincere,  infallibly 
be  accompanied  by  the  other  required  forms 
of  confession ;  and  so  this  specific  form  of 
confession  stands  here  as  an  appropriate  rep- 
resentative of  the  outward  and  practical  con- 
fession of  Christ  in  general,  according  to  1 
Cor.  12  :  3  ;  and  such  confession  is  a  condition 
of  salvation,  according  to  our  Lord  s  own 
words.  (Matt.  10:32,  etc.)  So,  also,  a  hearty  be- 
lief of  the  resurrection  of  Christ  is  suitably 
put  for  all  that  it  implies — his  atoning  death 

(1  Cor.  15:17,  18),    his    divine    Sonship    (Rom.  1:4;   1 

John  4: 15),  and,  in  general,  the  truth  of  all  his 
teachings,  his  works,  and  his  claims,  for  his 
resurrection  is  the  divine  seal  and  attestation 
of  all  these.  "The  heart  requires  the  help  of 
the  mouth,"  saj's  Theophylact, "for  then  faith 
shows  forth  and  manj'  are  benefited;  but  the 
mouth  also  needs  the  heart,  for  many  confess 
Christ  in  hypocrisy."  [No  one  but  he  who 
has  felt  himself  to  be  a  lost  sinner,  and  has 
thus  felt  the  need  of  an  Almighty  Saviour, 
can  truly  confess  Jesus  as  Lord,  for  "no  man 
can  say,  Jestis  is  Lord  but  in  the  Holy  Spirit." 
(iCor.i2:3.)  In  the  writings  of  the  apostles, 
the  term  Lord  generally  "serves  to  charac- 
terize either  his  pre-mundane  or  post-mun- 
dane existence,  and  therefore  points  him  out 
either  as  Son  of  God  or  the  exalted  Son  of 
man."  (Philippi.)]  Confession  with  the 
mouth  is  here  mentioned  before  belief  in  the 
heart,  agreeably  to  the  ordinary  method  in 
common  conversation,  and  in  Scripture,  of 
putting  in  the  foreground  what  is  outward 
and  phenomenal,  and  afterward  what  is  ab- 
stract and  inward,  though  logically  precedent. 

(johD3:5;   1  Peter  1  :  2  ;   2  Peter  1  :  10.)       But    this    Very 

common  and  popular  order  of  speaking  gives 
place  to  the  logical  order  in  the  next  verse. 
[Perhaps,  also,  the  mouth  confession  was  men- 
tioned first  to  correspond  with  the  position  of 
'mouth'  in  the  Mosaic  dictum  of  ver.  8.  This 
rhetorical  order  of  the  words  mouth,  heart, 
has  been  frequently  adduced  to  illustrate  the  i 
meaning  of  the  phraee  "  born  of  water  and  the  I 


Spirit."  There  is  a  sense,  however,  in  which 
mouth  comes  befor6  heart,  but  there  is  no 
sense  in  which  water  (regarded  as  the  water 
of  baptism)  precedes  the  birth  from  the  Spirit. 
Thou  shalt  be  saved.  The  result  of  such 
confessing  faith  corresponds  with  'shall  live' 
of  ver.  5.] 

10.  [For  is  confirmatory  of  the  preceding 
statement.  Believeth  unto  righteousness. 
To  believe  unto  righteousness  is  a  believing 
which  obtains  righteousness,  and  to  this  faith 
of  the  heart  must  be  added  the  confession 
of  the  mouth,  in  order  to  a  full  salvation.] 
There  is  here  a  change  of  construction  in  the 
English  of  the  two  clauses,  but  in  the  Greek 
both  verbs  are  impersonal,  and  a  very  literal 
translation  would  be:  "For  with  the  heart  it 
is  believed  unto  righteousness,  and  with  the 
mouth  it  is  confessed  unto  salvation;  "  or,  less 
literally,  but  more  in  conformity  with  English 
idiom:  "With  the  heart  faith  is  exercised 
unto  righteousness,  and  with  the  mouth  con- 
fession is  made  unto  salvation."  The  con- 
fession of  Christ  is  indispensable,  for  without 
it  the  evidence  of  justifying  faith  in  the  heart 
is  incomplete.  This  is  confirmed  by  another 
Scriptural  citation. 

11.  The  Scripture  saith.  This  passage— 
from  Isaiah  28 :  16,  quoted  also  before  at  9  :  33 
— closely  accords  with  the  Septungint  Version.  . 
The  Hebrew  reads  :  "  He  that  believeth  shall 
not  make  haste."  The  meaning  is  the  same — 
"shall  have  no  cause  of  shame,  or  fear,  or 
flight."  [The  apostle  adds  "every  one"  (n-as). 
"a  monosyllable  more  precious  than  the  whole 
world"  (Bengel),  which  is  found  neither  in 
the  Hebrew  nor  the  Septuagint;  but  this  form 
is  found  in  Joel  2:3  (3:5),  and  is  quoted  in 
ver.  13.  The  idea  of  universality  is  conveyed 
by  the  indefinite  participle.  On  this  Hebra- 
istic idiom,  every  one,  connected  with  a  nega- 
tived verb,  see  3  :  20.] 

12.  13.  There  is  no  difference— as  to 
faith  being  the  condition  oi  righteousness  or 
justification — between  the  Jew  and  the 
Greek.  There  is  no  distinction  between  Jew 
and   Gentile   as  to  the  way  of  justification. 


244 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  X. 


the  (Jreek:  for  the  same  Lord  over  all  is  rich  unto  all 
that  call  upon  him. 

13  For   whosever  shall  call   upon   the  name  of  the 
Lord  shall  be  saved. 


Lord  of  all,  and  is  rich  unto  all  that  call  upon  him ; 

13  fur,    Whosoever   shall   call   upon   the  name  of  the 

14  Lord  shall  be  saved.    How  then  shall  they  call  ou 


For  the  same  Lord  over  ail  is  rich,  etc. 
[This  clause  may  be  rendered  :  For  the  satne 
is  Lord  of  (or,  over)  all  (men),  being  rich  unto 
all,  etc.  Meyer  gives  it:  "The  Lord  of  all  is 
one  and  the  same."  Alford  prefers  the  usual 
rendering.  Compare  1  Cor.  12  :  5,  6.  Mark 
how  often  Paul  here  uses  the  confirmatory 
'for'— five  times  in  ver.  10-13.]  This  'Lord 
over  air  is  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  as  the  con- 
text, both  preceding  (ver.  9)  and  following  (ver. 
H,  i5),very  plainly  shows.  [So  Tholuck,  Riick- 
ort,  De  Wette,  Philippi,  Fritzsche,  Hofmann, 
and  others.]  But  the  Lord  mentioned  by  the 
prophet  Joel  (2:32)  is  Jehovah  (that  is  the 
word  in  the  Hebrew).  Thus  it  appears  that 
Jesus  Christ  is  "Lord  over  all"  (compare 
Acts  10 :  36)  [and  "God  over  all ;  "  see  9  :  5], 
and  is  identified  with  the  Jehovah  of  the  Old 
Testament.  ["Jehovah,  but  used  here  of 
Christ  beyond  a  doubt,  as  the  next  verse 
shows.  There  is  hardly  a  stronger  proof,  or 
one  more  irrefragable  by  those  who  deny  the 
Godhead  of  our  blessed  Lord,  of  the  unhesi- 
tating application  to  him  by  the  apostle  of  the 
name  and  attributes  of  Jehovah."  (Alford.) 
For  other  examples  where  Jehovah  and  the 
Lord  Christ  are  convertible  terms,  see  next 
verse  as  compared  with  Joel  3:5;  14:10,  11, 
with  Isa.  45:23  (compare  2  Cor.  5:10;  Phil. 
2  :  11)  ;  1  Cor.  10  :  4,  9,  with  Exod.  17  :  2,  7; 
Eph.  4 :  8,  with  Ps.  68  :  18,  etc.  On  the  use  of 
'Lord'  (xvpt'os)  in'the  New  Testament,  Prof. 
Stuart,  in  "Biblical  Kepository,"  1831,  p.  770, 
states,  as  the  result  of  his  investigation,  "that 
in  nearly  all  (about  two  hundred  and  forty) 
of  the  two  hundred  and  forty-six  instances  in 
which  Lord  (xupios)  is  used  by  Paul  to  desig- 
nate Christ  or  God,  independently'  of  quota- 
tions from  the  Old  Testament,  it  is  applied  to 
Christ."  (The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  here 
included  among  Paul's  writings.)  See  also 
notes  on  Acts  7  :  59.  Some  men  even  now, 
with  Origen  of  olden  tiine,  hesitate  to  address 
our  Saviour,  '  Lord  over  all,'  in  prayer;  but 
once  his  disciples  were  known  as  "callers  on 
the  name  of  Christ,"  and  this,  too,  before  the 
name  "Christians"  was  given  them.  See  ex- 
amples quoted  under  9:5,  to  which  many 
others  might  be  added.     Meyer  says :   "The 


calling  upon  Christ  is  not  the  worshiping 
absolutely."  But  this  idea,  as  Philippi  says, 
using  one  of  Meyer's  phrases,  is  "arbitrarily 
imported."  Has  Jehovah  revoked  his  own 
word  and  given  his  glory  to  another?  Or 
did  these  saints  forget  the  divine  command : 
"Thou  shalt  worship  the  Lord  thy  God  and 
him  only  shalt  thou  serve?"  How  true  is 
the  saying  of  Athanasius,  that  "we  need  a 
Kedeemer  who  is  our  Lord  by  nature,  in  order 
that  we  may  not  by  redemption  again  become 
the  slaves  of  an  idol."]  The  Lord  is  rich 
unto  all  that  call  upon  him.  The  Jew 
need  not  grudge  the  Gentile  his  share  in  the 
riches:  there  is  enough  for  all.  ["'Rich' 
and  liberal,  whom  no  multitude  of  believers, 
however  great,  can  exhaust,  who  never  is 
compelled  to  retrench."  (Bengel.)  Who- 
soever shall  call.  Literally:  For  every  one 
whosoever  may  or  shall  call,  etc.  Name  of 
the  Lord  represents  what  is  revealed  respect- 
ing the  character  and  office  work  of  our  Sa- 
viour. See  Hackett's  "Acts,"  2:88.  Mark 
how  all-embracing  is  the  offer  and  possibility 
of  salvation  !] 

In  the  remaining  part  of  this  chapter  the 
apostle  shows  that  the  rejection  of  the  Jews 
was  their  own  fault,  the  consequence  of  their 
inexcusable  unbelief  [for  "Israel  hath  not 
wanted  preachers  of  this  doctrine  of  salva- 
tion."    (Tholuck.)] 

14,  15.  These  two  verses  are  introductory 
to  what  follows,  to  the  end  of  the  chapter. 
They  point  out  what  preceding  conditions  are 
indispensable  to  that  saving  invocation  of  the 
name  of  the  Lord  spoken  of  in  ver.  13,  in-_ 
dispensable  alike  to  Jews  and  Gentiles,  and  so 
they  form  a  suitable  connection  between  the 
verses  that  precede  and  those  that  follow. 
[Even  if,  as  some  suppose,  these  are  the  words 
of  a  Jewish  objector,  excusing  his  people  by 
alleging  that  the  gospel  had  not  been  preached 
to  them,  even  from  this  point  of  view  these 
verses  are  to  be  regarded  as  setting  forth 
essential  truths.  "No  invocation  without 
faith,  no  faith  without  hearing,  no  hearing 
without  preaching,  no  preaching  without 
sending."  (Godet.)  It  seems  to  be  an  una- 
voidable   inference    from    these   verses,   and 


Ch.  X.] 


ROMANS. 


245 


14  How  then  shall  they  call  on  him  in  whom  they 
have  not  believed?  and  how  shall  they  believe  in  him 
of  whom  they  have  not  heard?  and  how  shall  they 
hear  without  a  preacher? 


him  in  whom  they  have  not  believed?  and  how  shall 

they  believe  in  him  whom   they  have  not  heard? 

15  and  how  shall  they  hear  without  a  preacher?  and 


others  immediately  preceding  (»-i3),  that  there 
is  no  salvation  for  the  heathen  apart  from 
their  hearing  and  believing  in  the  gospel. 
The  teaching  of  our  Epistle,  indeed,  supposes 
that  the  heathen,  even  in  the  absence  of  the 
gospel,  have  a  probation  in  this  life,  they  being 
a  law  unto  themselves.  And  Peter  goes  so  fjir 
as  to  say  (Actsio:35)  that  "in  every  nation  he 
that  feareth  God  and  worketh  righteousness 
is  acceptable  to  him."  Yet  this  same  apostle, 
in  ver.  43  of  the  same  chapter,  plainly  implies 
that  this  supposed  righteous  Gentile  must  be- 
lieve in  Christ,  in  order  to  receive  remission 
of  sins.  If  any  heathen  should  fully  and 
always  obey  the  inner,  unwritten  law,  he 
■would  be  saved,  we  may  trust,  on  the  ground 
of  his  merits  who  died  for  all.  If  they  fail — 
as,  we  suppose,  all  do — to  live  up  to  the  measure 
of  light  and  knowledge  which  they  possess  or 
could  have  gained,  they  will  doubtless  suffer 
"stripes,"  whether  "few"  or  "many"  we 
leave  to  the  Judge  of  all  the  earth,  who  will 
do  right.  We  believe  there  are  different  de- 
grees of  happiness  even  in  the  heavenly  state, 
and  there  may  be  as  manj'  degrees  of  unhap- 
piness  or  misery  in  the  world  of  the  loSt  as 
there  are  in  this  world  of  sin  and  suffering. 
One  thing  is  certain,  that  the  Scriptures  are 
silent  as  the  grave  touching  any  second  or 
future  probation  for  mankind  between  death 
and  the  judgment.'  On  the  contrary,  they 
almost  everywhere  express  or  imply  the  very 
contrary  of  this.     And  to  my  mind  the  great 


change  of  death  supposes  an  equally  great 
change  in  the  relation  which  we,  as  account- 
able beings,  sustain  to  God.  Thus  no  warrant 
from  Scripture  or  reason,  or  from  our  knowl- 
edge of  heathenism  in  any  age  or  couiitr3\ 
will  justify  us  in  hoping  that  for  many  of  the 
unevangelized  heathen  there  will  be  a  full 
salvation.  Still,  if  God  sees  in  any  heathen 
the  controlling  power  of  a  right  faith  and 
spirit,  I  know  not  why  the  redemption  of 
Christ  may  not  be  as  available  for  him  as  for 
those  of  like  faith  and  spirit  who  lived  before 
his  coming.]  How  then  (since  calling  on 
the  name  of  the  Lord  is  the  means  of  salva- 
tion) shall  they  (or,  can  they)  call  on  him 
[auTov,  him,  understood]  in  whom  they  have 
not  believed?  Belief  must  precede  invoca- 
tion. [If  we  believe  in  Christ  as  our  Lord 
and  Saviour,  we  cannot  but  invoke  him  in 
prayer,  for  no  one  can  be  a  Saviour  of  sinners 
whom  we  cannot  call  upon  to  save.  Even 
when  we  ask  anything  in  his  name,  we  are 
graciously  assured  from  his  own  lips  that  he 
will  do  it.  (John  u:  13, 14.)]  And  how  shall 
they  (or,  can  they)  believe  in  him  of  whom 
they  have  not  heard?  Hearing  must  pre- 
cede belief.  [In  these  sentences,  the  Greek 
particle  might  be  rendered  but  instead  of  n7id. 
The  Kevised  Version  omits  of  before  whom, 
and  rightlj'  so,  if  Christ  may  be  regarded  as 
speaking  through  his  preachers.*]  And  how 
shall  they  (or,  can  they)  hear  Avithout  a 
preacher?    A  message  must  be  proclaimed 


1  This  dssertion  as  a  general  proposition  will  hold 
strictly  true,  even  though  it  be  conceded  that,  as  a 
wholly  exceptional  instance,  Christ  did  in  his  disem- 
bodied state  go  to  "Hades"  (the  invisible  world),  and 
did  there  make  proclamation  of  some  kind  to  the  im- 
prisoned spirits  of  those  who  in  the  time  of  Noah  were 
disobedient.  (1  Peter  3 :  19.)  There  are  those  who  think 
that  Peter's  statement  to  this  eflTect  is  plain  and  unde- 
niable, but  the  passage,  standing  confessedly  alone  in 
the  Scriptures,  must  at  least  be  deemed  too  unique  and 
uncertain  to  warrant  the  general  inference  which  some 
would  derive  from  it.  No  one  can  tell  how  or  why  these 
particular  persons  were  singled  out  in  Hades  and 
preached  to  exclusively,  or  what  this  preaching  or 
proclamation  was,  or  what  was  its  effect.  Besides,  it  is 
maintained  by  some  of  our  best  Greek  scholars  that  the 
aorist  participle  (disobedient),  without  the  article,  marks 
the  date  or  occasion  uf  the  preaching,  thus  showing 


that  this  proclamation  was  made  to  them  when  once 
they  were  disobedient  upon  the  earth.  See  Dr.  Hovey's 
"Biblical  Eschatology,"  p.  99;  also  Dr.  N.  M.  Williams' 
"  Commentary  on  Peter."  Evidently  the  sjiirits  of  men 
who  were  once  so  "  disobedient "  that  the  mercy  of  God 
could  not  suflfer  them  to  live,  and  whom  he  subsequently 
confined  "  in  prison  "  for  punishment,  are  not  the  kind 
for  whose  benefit  the  speculations  of  some  theologians 
would  provide  a  future  probation.  Our  Saviour's  own 
words,  for  certain,  give  no  warrant  for  the  belief  that 
"he  descended  into  any  Hailes  priso?t,  but  rather  that  he 
returned  unto  the  Father  who  sent  him — that  he  went 
to  "  Paradise."  And  the  Scriptures,  in  general,  plainly 
teach  us  that  "  after  death  "  cometh,  not  probation,  but 
'  judgment." — (F.) 

2  On  the  use  of  the  genitive  and  accusative  (see  Eph. 
4:21)  after  the  verb  to  hear,  see  Winer,  p.  179;  Butt- 
mann,  166.— (F.) 


246 


EOMANS. 


[Ch.  X. 


15  And  how  shall  they  preach,  except  they  be  sent? 
as  it  is  written,  How  beautiful  are  the  feet  of  them  that 
preach  the  gospel  of  peace,  and  bring  glad  tidings  of 
good  things! 

16  But  they  have  not  all  obeyed  the  gospel.  For 
Esaias  saith,  Lord,  who  hath  believed  our  report? 


how  shall  they  preach,  except  they  be  sent?  even  as 
it  is  written.  How  beautiful  are  the  feet  of  them 
that  bring  iglad  tidings  of  good  things! 
16      But  they  did  not  all  hearken  to  the  ^glad  tidings. 
For  Isaiah  said,  Lord,  who  hath  believed  our  re- 


1  Or,  a  gospel 2  Or,  gospel. 


in  order  to  be  heard.  ["The  gospel  does  not 
fall  like  rain  from  the  clouds,  but  is  brought 
by  the  hands  of  men  wherever  it  is  sent  from 
above."  (Calvin.)  The  word  which  is  to  be 
proclaimed  is  Christ's  (ver.  n,  Revised  version),  and 
its  preachers  are  sent  by  him.']  And  how 
shall  they  preach,  except  they  be  sent? 
A  message  necessarily  implies  a  messenger. 
If,  then,  God  has  ordained  that  men  should 
be  saved  by  believing  on  Christ,  he  must  have 
intended  that  Christ  should  be  made  known 
to  them  as  a  Saviour;  if  he  has  ordained  the 
end,  he  tnust  have  ordained  the  means.  Two 
practical  observations  are  in  place  here.  The 
first  is — that  the  confession  of  Christ  (ver.  9,  lo) 
and  the  calling  upon  his  name  (v.r.  12, 13)  must 
be  a  sincere,  heart-prompted  confession  and 
calling,  and  not  a  merely  lip-service;  this  is 
implied,  of  course,  in  all  cases  where  the  Scrip- 
tures make  saving  results  to  depend  upon  any 
such  oral  utterance  or  outward  act.  The  sec- 
ond observation  is — that  though  the  questions 
in  these  two  verses  are  applied,  in  the  verses 
that  follow,  as  the  apostle's  argument  here 
requires,  particularly  to  the  Jews,  they  form, 
by  legitimate  generalization,  a  valid  and 
forcible  argument,  at  all  times,  for  sending 
preachers  of  the  gospel  to  the  heathen,  and  to 
all  who  are  in  ignorance  or  in  error.  As  it  is 
Avritten,  How  beautiful  are  the  feet,  etc. 
— that  is,  how  welcome  and  pleasant  is  the 
coming  of  those  who  bring  glad  tidings  !  This 
quotation  is  from  Isa.  52 :  7  [and  follows  the 
Hebrew  rather  than  the  Septuagint.  The 
hitter,  in  fact,  wholly  mistakes  the  meaning, 
and  renders:  "I  am  present  as  an  hour  (of 
bloom  or  beauty)  upon  the  mountains."  On 
'beautiful'  (ipatoi,  from  iipa,  hour).  Trench 
remarks  that  every  living  thing  has  its  hour 
or  period  of  grace  and  beauty  when  it  is  love- 
liest and  best;  hence  this  adjective  came  first 
to  mean  timely  and  then  beautiful.  The 
apostle  omits  "upon  the  mountains"  as  not 
appropriate  to  his  purpose.     Modern  Greek. 


it  is  said,  retains  this  same  figure  of  speech, 
and  the  wish  that  one  may  be  well-footed  is 
that  he  may  be  the  bearer  of  good  news].  The 
expression  borrows  its  form,  probably,  from 
the  case  of  the  messengers  who  came  to  Zion 
across  the  intervening  mountains,  announcing 
the  speedy  return  of  the  captives  from  Baby- 
lon. But  the  words  had  from  the  beginning 
a  reference  to  the  glad  tidings  of  the  Messianic 
salvation,  as  the  connection  in  which  the 
prophet  Isaiah  introduces  them  plainly  shows, 
and  as  even  the  Rabbinical  interpreters  per- 
ceived ;  so  that  it  is  in  their  real  sense,  and 
not  merely  in  the  way  of  accommodation,  that 
the  apostle  here  quotes  them.  Preach  the 
gospel  of  peace.  This  clause  is  omitted  by 
Lachmann  and  Tischendorf  [also  by  Westcott 
and  Hort],  as  not  being  found  in  the  best 
manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament,  though 
undoubtedly  genuine  in  Isaiah.  The  only 
doubt  is,  whether  Paul  quoted  so  fully  from 
Isaiah's  prophecy.  [Meyer,  De  Wette,  Phil- 
ippi,  Godet,  regard  the  omission  as  an  error 
of  the  copyists.] 

16.  But  [though  the  glad  tidings  were  thus, 
supposedly,  proclaimed]  they  have  not  all 
obeyed  the  gospel— ^better,  they  did  not 
hearken  to  the  good  news.  This  is  what  the 
apostle  affirms  in  regard  to  the  Jews  in  the 
time  of  Isaiah,  in  respect  to  the  good  news  of 
the  Messiah  to  come;  and  what  he  hints,  and 
might  truly  afiBrm,  in  regard  to  the  Jews  in 
his  own  time,  in  respect  to  the  good  news  of 
the  Messiah  already  come.  In  both  cases, 
but  especially  in  the  last,  he  might  have  truly 
said  that  nearly  all,  or  the  great  majority  dis- 
believed ;  but  he  contents  himself  with  saying, 
in  eflfect,  not  all  believed,  thus  courteously 
softening  an  unwelcome  truth,  instead  of 
pressing  it  to  its  utmost  extent.  In  fact,  the 
language  which  he  quotes  from  Isa.  53:  1, 
implies  that  there  were  but  few  who  believed 
the  prophet's  report  of  the  good  news.  [Per- 
haps the  'all'  spoken  of  here  contains  some 


I  On  the  frequent  use  of  x*»P"'«  (apart  from,  without)  in  the  New  Testament,  and  its  distinction  from  &vtv, 
see  Ellicott  on  Eph.  2  :  12.— (F.) 


Ch.  X.] 


ROMANS. 


247 


17  So  then  faith  comeih  by  hearing,  and  hearing  by 
the  word  of  God. 

18  But  I  say,  Have  they  not  heard?  Yes  verily, 
their  sound  went  into  all  the  earth,  and  their  words 
unto  the  ends  of  the  world. 


17  port?    So  belief  comejh  of  hearinp,  and  hearing  by 

18  the  word  of  Christ.    But  I  say,  Did  ihey  not  hearf 
Yea,  verily. 

Their  sound  went  out  into  all  the  earth, 
And  their  words  unto  the  ends  of  '  the  world. 


1  Gr.  (Ae  inhabited  earth. 


allusion  to  what  the  'all'  should  have  dono 
according  to  ver.  11-13.  (De  Wette.)  The 
word  Lord  is  found  in  the  LXX,  but  not  in 
the  Hebrew.*] 

17.  This  verse  is  a  conclusion  from  the  pre- 
ceding, confirming  also  what  was  said  in  ver. 
14,  15.  The  word  translated  'hearing'  (a<co^) 
is  the  same  which  in  the  preceding  verse  is 
translated  'report.'  It  means  in  both  cases, 
"  that  which  is  heard  "  ;  and  when  an  inspired 
prophet  or  apostle  is  the  speaker,  tiiat  which 
is  heard  is  the  "  word  of  God,"  agreeably  to  1 
Thess.  2:  13.  [The  text  of  Tischendorf  (8), 
Westcott  and  Hort,  and  of  the  Revisers,  reads, 
"the  word  of  Christ."  Mr.  Beet,  in  order  to 
preserve  the  spirit  of  the  original,  gives  this 
rendering:  "  Who  has  believed  what  we  have 
heard?  Therefore,  faith  comes  from  some- 
thing heard,  and  that  which  is  heard  comes 
through  the  word  of  Christ."  The  following, 
perhaps,  gives  the  meaning  quite  as  well: 
Who  hath  believed  our  preaching?  Accord- 
ingly, faith  (belief)  comes  from  preaching, 
and  preaching  comes  through  the  word  of 
Christ;  in  other  words,  the  proclaimed  mes- 
sage is  given  by  command  of  Christ  (Meyer), 
or,  more  probably,  is  contained  in  the  word 
of  Christ.     (Cremer. )] 

18.  Surely  the  Jews  cannot  excuse  their 
unbelief  on  the  ground  that  thoy  have  not 
heard  the  gospel,  for  it  has  been  preached 
without  any  restriction  to  both  Jews  and 
Gentiles,  and,  in  fact,  so  widely,  that  the 
voice  of  the  preachers  may  well  be  said, 
according  to  the  Psalmist's  description  of  the 
silent  testimony  of  God's  works,  to  have 
"gone  forth  into  all  the  earth,"  -  etc.     This 


seems,  at  first  view,  a  bold  hyperbole;  but  it 
is  hardly  more  than  what  is  elsewhere  said 
in  more  literal  language.  See  Col.  1:  6,  23. 
The  restricted  national  dispensation  had  given 
place  to  the  proclamation  of  a  universal  gospel 
for  all  nations,  the  boundaries  of  Judaism  had 
been  overleaped,  the  Saviour  of  the  world 
had  issued  his  proclamation  to  every  creature 
(Mark  16:  15),  in  all  nations  (M..tt. 28:  i9),  and  his 
obedient  servants  had  begun  the  work  of 
preaching  the  word  every*vliere  (Acts8:4;  Rom. 
la:  19),  and  that  universal  work  so  well  be- 
gun, and,  indeed,  already  so  far  advanced, 
is  to  go  on  without  cessation  until  all 
the  ends  of  the  world  shall  remember  and 
turn  to  the  Lord.  (  8.22:27.)  [Yet,  no  one, 
we  think,  can  suppose  that  by  the  words, 
"their  sound"  (or  line)  the  Psalmist  meant 
the  sound  of  the  gospel  from  the  lips  of  its 
preachers.  Paul  here  "simply  uses  Scrip- 
tural language  to  express  his  own  ideas,  as  is 
done  involuntarily  almost  by  every  preacher 
in  every  sermon."  (Hodge.)  Alford,  however, 
does  not  see  here  any  mere  accommodation  ot 
language,  but  thinks  that  as  the  psalm  is 
"a  comparison  of  the  sun  and  glory  of  the 
heavens  with  the  word  of  God,"  so  Paul  took 
this  text  in  its  context,  and  followed  up  the 
comparison  of  the  psalm.] 

19.  Nor  can  the  Jew  excuse  himself  on  the 
ground  that  the  nation  was  taken  by  surprise, 
without  any  previous  intimation  of  God's 
purpose  to  give  the  Messianic  salvation  to  the 
Gentiles;  for  both  Moses  and  Isaiah  had  dis- 
tinctly declared  this,  and  the  latter  had  pre- 
dicted the  unbelief  and  disobedience  of  the 
people  of  Israel,  and  the  Lord's  reproval  of 


1  The  student  will  notice  that  the  first  verb  and  the 
last  noun  of  this  verse  are  both  derived  from  dicouw, 
to  hear.— (F.) 

20f  the  two  negatives  in  the  clause, 'did  they  not 
hear,'  the  latter,  ovk,  according  to  Winer,  belongs  to 
the  verb  of  the  sentence,  and  the  former  alone  is  inter- 
rogatory, as,  did  they  fail  to  hear?  The  answer  would 
then  be:  nay  rather,  assuredly  not.  In  this  case,  the 
answer  would  negative  the  not  hearing,  as  the  answer 
in   ver.  19  would  negative  the  not  knowing.    Winer 


remarks  that  in  interrogative  sentences  with  iJ^rj. 
"  the  speaker  always  has  his  eye  on  a  negative  answer." 
Buttmann,  however  (p.  248),  supposes  the  negatives  of 
our  text  require,  like  the  Latin  nonne,  an  affirmative 
answer.  The  statement  of  Winer's  is  probably  correct. 
Yet,  according  to  our  idiom,  or  usage,  the  proper,  or,  at 
least,  the  natural  answer  to  this  query,  did  they  not 
hear?  would  be  (if  we  borrow  the  corrective  idea  of 
Hfvovvyt),  "Yes,  they  did  hear;  and  more  than  this 
was  true  in  regard  to  this  matter."— (F.) 


248 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  X. 


19  But  I  say,  Did  not  Israel  know?  First  Moses 
saith,  I  will  provoke  you  to  jealousy  by  them  that  are 
no  people,  and  by  a  loulisb  nation  I  will  anger  you. 

2u  But  Esaias  is  very  bold,  and  saith,  I  was  found  of 
them  that  sought  rue  not;  I  was  made  manifest  unto 
them  that  asked  not  after  me. 

21  But  to  Israel  he  saith,  All  day  long  I  have 
stretched  forth  my  hands  unto  a  disobedient  and  gain- 
saying people. 


19  But  I  say.  Did  Israel  not  know?    First  Moses  saith, 

I  will  provoke  you  to  jealousy  with  that  which 

is  no  nation, 
With   a  nation  void  of    understanding  will    I 

anger  you. 

20  And  Isaiah  is  very  bold,  and  saith, 

I  was  found  of  them  that  sought  me  not ; 
I  became  manifest  unto  them  that  asked  not  of 
me. 

21  But  as  to  Israel  he  saith,  All  the  day  long  did  I 
spread  out  my  hands  unto  a  disobedient  and  gain- 
saying people.  r 


them  for  it.  Did  not  Israel  knoAV?i  [The 
enipha&is  on  the  word  '  Israel'  (in  the  Revised 
Text)  indicates  not  a  little  surprise  at  their 
supposed  ignorance.  Meyer  finds  in  this 
query  "a  further  possible  exculpation  for  the 
Jews."]  First  Moses  saith.  Moses  was 
the  first  to  say  this,  so  early  were  they  dis- 
tinctly apprised  of  God's  purpose.  I  will 
provoke  you  to  jealousy  by  them  that  are 
no  people.  (Deut.  32:  21.)  The  connection  in 
which  this  passage  occurs  is  very  significant: 
"As  you  have  provoked  me  to  anger  by  your 
idolatries,  I  will  provoke  you  to  jealousy  by 
transferring  your  abused  privileges  to  those 
who  have  heretofore  not  been  acknowledged 
as  my  people";  and  by  a  foolish  nation 
will  I  anger  you.  "  I  will  make  you  angry 
by  preferring  to  you  a  nation  whom  you  de- 
spise as  foolish,  in  contrast  with  your  boasted 
wisdom."  Compare  2:  17-20.  "All  other 
nations  were  as  inferior  to  the  Jews  in  reli- 
gious knowledge  as  all  other  nations  were  to 
the  Greeks  in  human  culture."  (Vaughan, 
apud  Webster,  p.  243.)^ 

20.  But  Esaias  is  very  bold  and  saith. 
This  passage  is  found  in  Isaiah  65:  1,  the 
clauses  being  transposed  by  the  apostle.     It 


was  a  bold  saying  indeed,  and  especially  so  in 
view  of  what  follows,  in  which  the  disobedient 
and  contradictory  spirit  of  the  Jews  is  put  iu 
contrast  to  the  more  docile  temper  of  the 
Gentiles.* 

21.  But  to  Israel— that  is,  with  reference 
to  Israel.  The  passage  here  quoted  imme- 
diately follows  that  which  is  quoted  in  the 
preceding  verse,  and  both  are  spoken  by  the 
Lord  in  reply  to  the  prophet's  intercession  in 
behalf  of  the  people  in  the  preceding  chapter. 
All  day  long,  he  says,  with  patient  long 
suflFering,  I  have  stretched  forth  my  hands 
(in  remonstrance  and  invitation)  to  a  diso- 
bedient and  gainsaying  people.  Instead 
of  '  disobedient  and  gainsaying,'  the  Hebrew 
has  "rebellious  people"  ['gainsaying'  being 
added  by  the  LXX.].  '  Disobedient  and  gain- 
saying' is  the  apostolic  equivalent  of  the 
prophet's  word  "rebellious."  'Disobedient' 
was  not  enough.  In  addition  to  their  nega- 
tive non-compliance  with  the  Lord's  com- 
mands, they  are  represented  as  contradicting 
him  to  his  fiice,  like  one  who  says:  "I  will 
not,"  when  commanded  to  do  some  particular 
thing.  For  that  is  the  meaning  of 'gainsay- 
ing'— saying  again,  or,  against  what  is  com- 


^  This  question,  with  the  negative,  mtj,  is  equivalent 
to:  was  Israel  ignorant  of  this?  and  hence  requires  a 
negative  answer.    See  note  on  the  preceding  verse. — (F.) 

2  Epi,  with  the  dative,  is  here  over,  on  account  of,  a 
no-nation,  not  against,  as  the  "Five  Clergymen"  and 
Alford  render  it;  for  iu  thisseiise  the  accusative  would 
be  more  suitable.  These  negatived  substantives  occur 
only  in  Old  Testament  quotations.  The  Common  Ver- 
sion preserves  the  distinction  between  people  and 
nation  which  is  found  in  the  Hebrew,  but  which  is 
neglected  by  the  Seventy,  and  by  Paul.— (F.) 

3  The  fie,  above,  marks  the  transition  to  another 
prophet.  According  to  Winer,  Meyer,  and  others,  the 
prophet  (in  the  name  of  God)  not  only  speaks  out 
boldly,  but  he  makes  bold  and  says,  so  that  the  idea  of 
the  first  verb  is  not  made  subordinate.  With  the  pas- 
sive ('  was  found  ')  we  have  quite  frequently,  especially 
in  the  perfect  and  aorist,  the  dative  of  agency,  instead 
of  the  genitive  with  urrd.    But  Winer  remarks  that  the 


dative  in  such  a  case  "  denotes  the  person  not  by  whom 
something  has  been  done,  but  to  whom  what  has  been 
done  belongs."  Here  the  finding  which  belonged  to 
them  is  equivalent  to  a  finding  by  them.  Thus,  to 
become  known  to  a  person  is  to  become  known  by  him. 
Some  manuscripts,  however,  have  iv  (in)  before  the 
dative.  Trench,  in  his  "  Synonyms,"  states  that 
epioTdiw,  the  Latin  rogare,  implies  that  the  one  asking 
stands  on  a  footing  of  equality  or  familiarity  with  him 
from  whom  the  boon  is  asked;  while  aiTt'oj,  the  Latin 
peto,  is  the  "constant  word  for  the  seeking  of  the  in- 
ferior from  the  superior."  This  view  is  combated  by 
Prof.  Cremer,  and  others.  See,  also,  Thayer's  "  'Lexi- 
con," sub  voce,  and  compare  1  John  5:  16,  and  the  use 
of  eVepuTaw  above.  According  to  Meyer,  this  passage 
historically  refers  to  the  Jews  ;  but  Paul  sees  in  them, 
since  they  had  become  idolatrous  and  heathenish,  a 
typical  representation  of  the  Gentiles.  Others  think 
the  primary  reference  is  to  the  Gentiles.— (F.) 


Ch.  XI.] 


ROMANS. 


249 


CHAPTEK  XI. 


I  SAY  then,  Hath  God  cast  away  his  people?     God 
forbid.     For  I  also  am  an  Israelite,  of  the  seed  of 
Abraham,  oj  the  tribe  of  Beujamiu. 

2  (iod  hath  not  cast  away  his  people  which  he  fore- 
kuew.    Wot  ye  not  what  the  Scriptures  saith  of  Ellas? 


1  I  say  then.  Did  God  cast  ofT  his  people?    God  for- 
bid.    For  I  also  am  au  Israelite, ol  the  seed  of  Abra- 

2  ham,  of   the  tribe  of  Benjamin.     God  did  not  cast 
otf  his  people  whom  he  foreknew.    Or  know  ye  not 


manded,  answering  back.  [Godet  finds  an 
illustration  of  this  in  the  Book  of  Miilachi : 
"And  ye  say  I"  From  the  above  repre- 
sentation, "it  is  clear,"  as  the  last-named 
commentator  says,  "that  the  apostle  in  no 
wise  puts  the  rejection  of  Israel  to  the  account 
of  an  unconditional,  divine  decree,  but  that 
he  ascribes  the  cause  of  it  to  Israel  them- 
selves." And  Bengel  remarks  that  the  doc- 
trine of  a  double  will  of  God,  of  good  pleasure, 
and  of  sealing,  is  here  shown  to  be  absurd. 
The  denial,  however,  of  a  revealed  and  secret 
will  on  the  part  of  God,  in  other  words,  what 
God  desires  in  itself  considered,  and  what  he 
purposes  to  do  on  the  whole  (H.  B.  iSmith),  is 
not  unattended  with  difficulty.  See  Edwards' 
"Freedom  of  the  Will,"  Part  IV.,  §  IX., 
IV.;  also  Vol.  II.,  pp.  161,  162,  513-516. 
"With  reference  to  Israel  as  a  wiiole,  it  must 
be  said  that  there  was  a  rejection,  or  cast- 
ing away  (aTro^oAij,  11:  lo)  of  them  on  the  part 
of  God;  but  this  verse  shows  why  and  in 
what  spirit  it  was  done.  God  has  no  pleasure 
in  the  death  of  the  wicked,  yet  who  will  say 
that  the  transgressor's  death  is  wholly  con- 
trary to  the  determinate  counsel  of  God,  the 
counsel  of  his  will?  What  Christian  believer 
is  willing  to  confess,  with  the  ancient  Pagan 
Greeks,  that  some  things  happen  not  only 
with  the  will  of  God,  but  against  his  will,  or 
fixed  purpose  ?  ] 

We  may  now  thus  sum  up  the  contents  of 
the  last  part  of  this  chapter,  (ver  18-21.)  After 
having  shown,  in  a  general  way,  that  because 
faith  Cometh  by  hearing  the  divine  word,  it 
was  necessary  that  the  gospel  should  be 
preached  to  all  (ver.  u-17),  he  shows,  specially, 
that  the  heavenly  truths  had  been  preached 
both  to  all  the  Gentiles  (ver.  is),  and  also  to  the 
Jews  (ver.  19),  but  with  unequal  success;  for 
many  of  the  Gentiles  have  believed  (ver.  20), 
while  the  Jews,  for  the  most  part,  remained 
obdurate  (ver.  21). 

The  way  is  now  prepared  for  a  more  favor- 
able view  of  the  ultimate  purpose  of  God  in 
regard  to  the  Jewish  people. 


Ch.  11 :  [The  temporary  casting  away  of 
the  Jews,  the  source  of  highest  good  both  to 
the  Gentiles  and  to  the  Jewish  race.] 

The  apostle  now  turns  to  a  more  hopeful 
aspect  of  the  destiny  of  the  Jewish  nation ; 
their  rejection  is  neither  total  (ver.  110)  nor 
final.  (Ver.  11-36.)  It  is  limited  both  as  toper- 
sons  and  as  to  time. 

1.  I  say  then.  Hath  God  cast  away  his 
people  ?  [A  question  of  the  apostle's  origina- 
tion. Compare  the  more  frequent:  "What 
then  shall  we  say?"]  This  form  of  expres- 
sion, 'I  say  then,'  introduces,  interrogatively, 
a  false  inference  which  might  be  drawn  from 
the  closing  verses  of  the  previous  chapter,  but 
introduces  it  only  in  order  to  refute  it.  It  is 
implicitly  refuted,  as  Bengel  well  says,  in  the 
very  statement  of  it,  for  he  still  calls  them  his 
people.  But  it  is  more  explicitly  refuted  by 
the  fact  immediately  referred  to,  that  the 
apostle  himself  was  [no  mere  proselyte  to 
Judaism,  but]  an  Israelite,  and  a  representa- 
tive of  many  other  believing  Israelites.  So 
he  rejects  the  false  inference  with  emphatic 
earnestness:  God  foT\i\A—let  not  such  a  thing 
be.  For  I  also  am  not  only  an  Israelite 
(see  note  on  9:4),  but  of  the  tribe  of  Benja- 
min, one  of  the  two  royal  tribes  of  Israel 
(isara.  10:20, 21;  Aois  12 :2i),  the  tribe  SO  closely  asso- 
ciated with  the  tribe  of  Judah,  and,  after  the 
return  from  the  exile,  almost  identified  with 
it.  (Ezra4:i;  10:9.)  So  the  Very  man  who  has 
been  saying  these  seemingly  hard  things 
against  the  Jews  is  himself  a  Hebrew  of  the 
Hebrews  (Phil.  3:5),  and  thus  a  iit  representative 
of  the  saved  remnant  [himself  a  living  proof 
that  God  had  not  thrust  away  all  Israel.  If 
the  truth  of  the  supposition  were  conceded, 
then,  as  Alford  says,  "it  would  exclude  from 
God's  kingdom  the  writer  himself"]. 

2.  The  inference  which  he  had  refuted  in 
the  first  v«rse,  by  citing  an  example  which 
proved  it  false,  be  now  directly  denies,  and 
adds  a  new  refutation  of  it.  Which  he  fore- 
knew— which  he  selected  as  the  chosen  nation. 
[Prof.  Cremer:  "God  has  not  cast  away  his 


250 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  XL 


how  he  maketh  intercession  to  God  against  Israel, 
saying, 

S  Lord,  they  have  killed  thy  prophets,  and  digged 
down  thine  aUars ;  and  I  am  left  alone,  and  they  seek 
my  life. 

4  But  what  saith  the  answer  of  God  unto  him?  I 
have  reserved  to  myself  seven  thousand  men,  who 
have  not  bowed  the  knee  to  the  image  of  Baal. 


what  the  scripture  saith  i  of  Elijah  ?  how  he  pleadeth 

3  with  God  against  Israel,  Lord,  ihey  have  killed  thy 
prophets,  they  have  digged  down  thine  altars:  and 

4  I  am  left  alone,  and  they  seek  my  life.  But  what 
saith  the  answer  of  God  unto  him?  I  have  left  for 
myself  seven  thousand  men,  who  have  not  bowed 


people  with  whom  he  had  before  joined  him- 
self—that is,  before  this  union  was  historically 
realized."  Such  a  supposition  would  contra- 
dict the  "immutability  of  his  counsel."  Mark 
the  use  of  the  direct  negative  in  a  positive 
statement.]  We  must  not  limit  the  expression 
'his  people,'  here,  to  the  elect  Christian  people 
of  God  found  among  the  Jews,  for  this  would 
make  the  question  of  ver.  1  self-contradictory, 
and  the  negation  of  this  verso  a  mere  truism. 
Wot  (or,  know)  ye  not  [introduces  another 
proof  that  God  had  not  wholly  cast  off  his 
people]  what  the  Scripture  saith  of  Elias? 
A  literal  translation  would  be:  Saith  in  Elias, 
in  the  story  of  Elias.  Compare  Mark  12  :  26. 
He  maketh  intercession  to  God  {pleads, 
with  God)  against  Israel.  This  is  the  only 
passage  in  Scripture  where  the  word  interces- 
sion has  an  unfavorable  meaning,  or  is  coupled 
with  the  preposition  'against.'  [Yet  see  Acts 
25:24.  The  verb,  primarily,  means  to  meet 
■with,  and  with  this  the  idea  of  making  request 
or  sujiplication  is  closely  related.]  This  plea 
or  protest  of  Elijah  is  found  in  1  Kings  19 :  14 
[and  is  quoted  somewhat  freely  from  the 
Septuagint.  (3King<i9:i4.)  The  word  saying 
■which  precedes  Lord  in  o}iv  Common  Version 
is  found  only  in  two  MSS. 

3.  They  have  killed  thy  prophets,  and 
digged  down  thine  altars.  The  verbs  are 
in  a  past,  not  in  the  perfect,  tense:  They  slew 
thy  prophets ;  they  utterly  overthrexo  (or, 
razed  to  the  ground)  thine  altars.  I  am  (or, 
was)  left  alone,  etc.  These  altars  were  prob- 
ably those  on  the  high  places].  These  words 
were  spoken  in  the  times  of  Ahaz  and  Jeze- 
bel, when  the  prophet  had  fled  into  the  wilder- 
ness to  save  his  life,  which  Jezebel  had  sworn 
to  take  before  another  day  should  pass. 
(1  King,  19: 2.)  [The  Greek  word  for  'life'— cor- 
responding to  the  word  used  in  the  Hebrew — 
sometimes,  as  here,  refers  to  the  life  of  the 
body  (compare  Matt.  6  :  25),  but  often  has 
reference  to  that  part  of  man  which  can  live 
apart  from  the  body  (compare  Matt.  10:28), 
and  is  in  our  versions  more  frequently  trans- 


lated soiil  than  'life.']  Elijah  seems  to  have 
been  literally  'left  alone'  as  a  true  prophet 
of  the  Lord,  and  in  his  dejection  he  may  have 
fancied  himself  the  only  true  servant  of  God 
in  the  land.  But  the  case  was  far  from  being 
as  bad  as  that. 

4.  The  sad  complaint  of  Elijah,  'I  am  left 
alone,'  was  very  probably  uttered  under  an 
exaggerated  view  of  the  prevalence  of  evil,  as 
was  that  of  the  Hebrew  Psalmist,  when  he 
said  in  his  haste:  "All  men  are  liars" 
(Ps.ueiii);  but  the  Lord  both  reproved  and 
encouraged  him  by  the  manner  in  which  he 
responded  to  this  doleful  complaint.  The 
answer  of  God  unto  him,  or  the  response 
from  the  divine  oracle,  as  the  word  (found 
nowhere  else  in  the  New  Testament,  though 
the  verb  occurs  several  times  ;  see  7:  3)  might 
be  freely  paraphrased,  was  this;  I  have  re- 
served to  myself— that  is,  I  have  kept  faithful 
to  myself  and  free  from  the  prevalent  idolatry 
not  merely  one  solitary  prophet,  but  seven 
thousand  men,  who  have  not  boAved  the 
knee  to  the  image  of  Baal.  [This  citation 
follows  the  Hebrew  far  more  closely  than  it 
does  the  LXX.  'To  myself  is  an  addition 
of  the  apostle.]  It  will  be  observed  that  the 
words  'the  image  of  are  supplied  by  the 
translators;  the  original  has  merely,  'who 
have  not  bowed  the  knee  to  Baal.*  The  reason 
why  the  translators  thought  it  necessary  to  add 
these  apparently  superfluous  words  undoubt- 
edly was,  that  they  found  in  the  original  Greek 
the  feminine  article  prefixed  to  the  name  Baal, 
and  believing  that  Baal,  the  sun  god  of  the 
Phcenicians,  was  always  regarded  as  a  male 
divinity,  and  finding  the  masculine  article  in 
the  LXX.  in  the  passage  -which  is  here  quoted, 
[though  in  other  places  the  feminine  is  used], 
they  supposed  that  the  word  'image,'  or  some 
similar  noun  of  the  feminine  gender  in  Greek, 
must  be  understood.  There  is  reason  to  be- 
lieve, however,  that  this  fabulous  divinity  was 
regarded  by  its  worshipers  as  combining  both 
genders,  and  therefore  it  is  better  to  omit  the 
words  in  italics,  as  has  been  done  by  most 


Ch.  XL] 

5  Even  so  then  at  this  present  time  also  there  is  a 
remnant  according  to  the  election  of  grace. 

6  And  if  by  grace,  then  is  it  no  more  of  works :  oin- 
erwise  grace  is  no  more  grace.  But  if  it  be  of  worlts, 
then  is  it  no  more  grace:  otherwise  work  13  no  more 

^T  What  then'  Israel  hath  not  obtained  that  whicli 
he  seekelh  for ;  but  the  election  hath  obtained  it,  and 
the  rest  were  blinded.  


ROMANS. 


251 


5  the  knee  to  Baal.  Even  so  then  at  this  piesent  time 
also  there  is  a  remnant  according  to  the  electiuu  of 

6  grace.    But  if  it  is  by  grace,  it  is  no  more  of  w.jrks : 

7  otherwise  grace  is  no  more  grace.  What  then  1  iuat 
which  Israel  seeketh  for,  that  he  obtained  not;  but 
the  election  obtained  it,  and  the  rest  were  hardened: 


recent  revisers  of  the  English  Bible,  and  read 
simply:  Who  bowed  not  the  kiiee  to  Baal. 
[The  singular,  'knee,'  denotes  a  collective 
number  considered  as  a  single  conception. 
(Philii>pi.)  The  number  'seven  tliousand,' 
is,  perhaps,  not  to  be  taken  with  strict  literal- 
ness.  Seven  is  commonlj'  regarded  as  the 
covenant  number,  or  the  number  of  complete- 
ness.] 

5.  Even  so  then  [in  correspondence  with 
this  historical  precedent.  An  "analogical  in- 
ference"]. The  cases  compared  were  very 
similar.  Instead  of  the  rejection  of  all  save 
one,  as  Elijah  in  the  earlier  case  and  Paul  in 
the  later,  there  were  seven  thousand  in  Eli- 
jah's time,  and  "many  thousands"  of  Jews 
in  Paul's  time  (Aot92i:20),  who  were  faithful 
worshipers  of  God  and  believers  in  Christ; 
yet  in  both  cases  these  thousands  were  but  a 
remnant,  a  small  minority,  in  comparison 
with  the  great  mass  of  idolaters  and  unbe- 
lievers, and  it  was  only  through  the  gracious, 
divine  election  that  this  remnant  was  saved 
from  the  general  corruption.  [Paul's  lan- 
guage here,  literally  rendered,  is:  Thus,  there- 
fore, also  in  the  now  time  there  has  become 
(and  still  exists)  a  remnant.  According  to 
the  election  of  grace  means  in  virtue  of,  or, 
in  consequence  of,  an  election  made  through 
grace.  In  this  elect  remnant,  gathered  out 
from  an  elect  nation,  we  have  an  election 
within  an  election,  an  election  of  individuals 
to  eternal  life,  who  belonged  to  a  people  whom 
God  elected  to  the  privileges  of  gn.ce.  The 
election  spoken  of  here  is  regarded  from  a 
sublapsarian  point  of  view— that  is,  it  supposes 
the  gratuitously  elected  persons  were  guilty 
and  undeserving  sinners.] 

6.  And  if  by  grace,  then  is  it  no  more 
of  works:  otherwise  grace  is  no  more 
grace.  [The  apostle  must  here  rest  his  argu- 
ment a  moment  to  give  again  the  distinguish- 


ing characteristic  of  this  all-important '  grace.' 
The  verse  may  be  thus  paraphrased  :  But  (or, 
now)  if  this   remnant  has  been  selected  and 
reserved  through   grace,  it  is  no  longer  on 
account  of  the  merit  of  works,  since  (other- 
wise)  grace   would  cease^  to  show   itself  as 
grace.     A  purely  gratuitous  election  will  not 
allow  any  merit  of  works  to  be  mixed  up  witlj 
this  grace.]     The  apostle,  not  satisfied  with 
having  attributed  the   existence  of   even   a 
remnant  from  the  general  wreck  'to  the  elec- 
tion of  grace,'  reiterates  the  statement  in  a 
negative  form,  and  amplifies  it,  because  it  was 
so  important  to  convince  the  Jews,  who  were 
bent  on  seeking  salvation  by  works,  that  there 
was  no  hope  in  that  direction,  and  that  grace 
and  works,  as  grounds  of  salvation,  were  an- 
tagonistic in  their  very  nature,  so  that  there 
could   be  no  compromise  between   them,  or 
amalgam  of  the  one  with  the  other.     To  im- 
agine any  such  combination  would  be  to  sup- 
pose one  or  the  other  to  change  its  very  nature. 
Yet  this  is  just  what  many  men  are  still  trying 
to  do,  depending  mainly  upon  their  own  works 
for  acceptance  with  God,  but,  after  all,  ac- 
knowledging   their    need  of   divine    mercy. 
The  last  half  of  this  verse,  But  if  it  be  of 
works,  etc.,  is  rejected  as  spurious  by  some 
editors,  though  found  in  the  Vatican  manu- 
script, one  of  the  oldest  and  best,  to  say  the 
least.2    But  the  doubt  is  practically  of  little 
importance,  since  it  is  merely  a  question  of 
the  more  or  less  expansion  of  what  is  clearly 
expressed  in  the  former  part  of  the  verse. 

7.  What  then  shall  we  conclude?  [What 
is  to  be  inferred  from  the  two  (or  five)  preced- 
ing verses?  We  infer  the  reason  why  Israel  has 
failed  to  obtain  righteousness:  because  they, 
unlike  the  elect  remnant,  sought  to  obtain 
it  by  means  of  works.  The  verb  for  seek  is  a 
compound,  meaning  to  seek  after,  and  thus, 
to  seek  for  zealously.     Election  in  this  verse 


1  Present  indicatives  after  e'lrec  (since)  are  usually 
rendered  as  subjunctives.    (Winer,  283.)— (F.) 

2  Yet  this  manuscript  (B),  on  which  textual  critics 
have  80  greatly  depended,  and  which  is  characterized 


by  Westcott  and  Hort  as  "  neutral,"  or  unmixed  and 
independent,  furnishes  here  a  curious  reading  by  its 
substituting  the  word  '  grace'  for  the  last '  work.'— (F.) 


252 


EOMANS. 


[Ch.  XI 


8  (AccorcHiig  as  it  is  written,  God  hatli  given  tlieiu 
the  spirit  of  slumber,  eyes  that  tliey  should  not  see, 
and  ears  that  they  should  not  hear;)  unto  this  day. 

9  And  David  saitb,  Let  their  table  be  made  a  snare, 
and  a  trap,  and  a  stumblingblock,  and  a  recouipeuse 
unto  them  : 

10  Let  their  eyes  be  darkened,  that  they  may  not 
see,  aad  bow  down  their  back  alway. 


8  according  as  it  is  written,  God  gave  them  a  spirit  of 
stupor,  eyes  that  they  should  not  see,  and  ears  that 

9  they  should   not   hear,  unto  this  very  day.     And 
David  saith. 

Let  their  table  be  made  a  snare,  and  a  trap, 
And  a  stumblingblock,  and  a  recompense  unto 

them  : 
10        Let  their  eyes  be  darkened,  that  they  may  not 

see. 
And  bow  thou  down  their  back  alway. 


is  used  for  the  elect.]  Paul's  conclusion  is 
that  'Israel  did  not  find  that  which  he  is 
seeking'— namely,  righteousness  (9:  si),  or  jus- 
tification ;  but  the  election  hath  obtained 
it,  and  the  rest  were  blinded— or,  rather, 
were  hardened}  The  apostle  seems  here  to  be 
preparing  the  way  for  what  he  has  to  s^y  of  a 
more  favorable  nature  respecting  'the  rest' 

8.  Two  passages  are  here  combined — 
namely,  Isa.  29:  10;  Deut.  29:  4(3)  (com- 
pare Isa.  6:  9,  10),  and  quoted  freely  from 
the  LXX.  The  spirit  of  slumber,  or  of 
stupefaction,  such  as  is  produced  by  a  heavy 
blow  or  an  intoxicating  draught.  [Eyes  that 
they  should  not  see.  Philippi  has  it :  "eyes 
of  not  seeing,  or  blind  eyes."  an  incorrect  ren- 
dering; see  ver.  10.  The  substance  of  this 
verse  is  found  in  Matt.  13:  14;  John  12:  40; 
Acts  28:  26.  The  words  'unto  this  day'  are 
a  part  of  the  quotation.  They  occur  as  Paul's 
words  in  2  Cor.  3:  14,  where  he  affirms  that 
the  minds  of  the  children  of  Israel  were 
blinded,  and  that  a  vail  is  on  their  hearts.] 

9.  And  David  saith.  Another  similar 
prediction  of  the  divine  judgment  upon  the 
Jews  from  Ps.  69:  22,  undoubtedly  having  a 
typical  reference  to  the  Messiah.  The  quota- 
tion begins  with  the  figure  of  sudden  calamity 
overtaking  those  who  are  feasting  [at  the  ban- 
queting table']  in  fancied  security,  and  then 
passes  to  that  of  animals  caught  in  a  snare  or 
trap  (literally,  a  chase),  and  ends,  still  figur- 


atively, but  with  another  change,  by  the 
representation  of  a  people  suffering,  as  a  just 
recompense  for  their  sins,  a  judicial  blindness 
and  abandonment  to  be  oppressed  and  crushed 
by  haughty  victors.  [While  Paul  affirms  that 
^  David  saith,'  Meyer  and  others  deny  that 
David  is  the  author  of  the  psalm.  "  If  Meyer 
is  correct  in  his  opinion,  then  the  word  'David' 
would  be  used  as  a  title  of  the  entire  collec- 
tion of  the  Psalms.  .  .  .  But  it  is  by  no  means 
certain  that  he  is  correct  in  his  opinion." 
(Boise.)  Possibly  some  of  the  last  verses 
m&.y  have  been  a  later  edition.  "  Of  all  the 
psalms,  the  sixty-ninth  is  most  frequently 
quoted  in  the  New  Testament,  along  with  Ps. 
22,  as  a  prediction  of  Christ's  suflferings." 
(Philippi.)  In  this  quotation,  Paul  "follows 
the  LXX,  with  some  variations."  The  word 
for  trap,  or  chase,  is  introduced  here  from 
Ps.  35:  8  in  the  LXX.  Stumblingblock. 
See  note  on  9:  33.^  The  Hebrew  original,  as 
now  pointed,  has  no  word  for  '  recompense,' 
and  instead  of  "  bow  thou  down  their  back 
always,"  has,  as  in  our  Common  and  Revised 
Versions:  "and  make  their  loins  continually 
to  shake."  But  what  shall  we  say  as  to  the 
propriety  of  Christians  indulging  in  such  im- 
precaticms  as  these?  The  editor  of  Calvin's 
"Commentary  on  Romans"  says  that  "no 
one  is  allowed  to  curse  individuals,  except  he 
be  inspired  so  as  to  know  who  those  are  who 
are  given  up  by  God  to  final  judgment,  which 


1  There  is  a  difference  of  only  one  letter  in  Greek 

between  these  two  words,  e-rnqpiuOricrav  and  fmopu)9ri(Tav. 

The  passive  form  of  this  verb,  together  with  the  follow- 
ing context  (see,  also,  9 :  18),  indicates  that  this  '  hard- 
ening' took  place  through  the  agency  of  God;  so  most 
expositors.  Calvin,  on  this  verse,  rather  contrary  to 
his  usual  method,  argues  for  the  supralapsarian  view 
of  a  reprobation  by  God  before  the  foundation  of  the 
■world,  while  acknowledging  that  the  passages  here 
cited  by  Paul  are  adverse  to  such  a  view.  He  says : 
"  They  reason  absurdly  who,  whenever  a  word  is  said 
of  the  proximate  causes,  strive,  by  bringing  forward 
these,  to  cover  the  first  which  is  hid  from  our  view,  as 
though  God  had  not,  before  the  fall  of  Adam,  freely 
determined  to  do  what  seemed  good  to  him,  with  respect 


to  the  whole  human  race."  This  inference  of  Calvin 
is  a  very  natural — it  may  be  an  unavoidable— conclu- 
sion of  the  mere  logical  faculty,  exercising  itself  simply 
on  one  line  of  facts  ;  but  it  is  confessedly  a  going  be- 
yond the  reaxviiing  of  the  apostle  here,  and  generally 
througliout  this  Epistle.  The  Scriptures,  as  a  whole, 
plainly  teach  that  God  eflBcaciously  blinds  and  hardens 
men  only  as  a  judicial  penalty  or  punishment  for  their 
disobedience  and  unbelief. — (F.) 

2  The  accusatives,  with  the  preposition  eis,  are  here 
equivalent  to  nominatives.  This  construction  may  be 
regarded  as  Hebraistic.  So  in  the  phrase,  "  counted 
(eis)  for  righteousness,"  faith  is  not  regarded  as  some- 
thing resulting  in  righteousness,  but  as  righteousness 
itself. -(F.) 


Ch.  XL] 


ROMANS. 


253 


11  I  sav  then,  Have  they  stumbled  that  they  should 
fall?  Ciod  forbid:  but  )v;//«,'/- ihiuugh  tlieir  lall  salva- 
tion is  come  unto  the  Gentiles,  for  to  provoke  them  to 
jealousy. 

12  Now  if  the  fall  of  them  hf  the  riches  of  the  world, 
and  the  diminishing  of  them  the  riches  of  the  Gen- 
tiles; how  much  more  their  fulness? 


11  I  say  then,  Did  they  stumble  that  they  might  fall  ? 
God  forbid  :  but  by  their  '  fall  salvation  is  cume  unto 

12  the  Gentiles,  for  to  provoke  them  to  jealousy,  ^uw 
if  their  fall  is  the  riches  oi  the  world,  and  their  1  s3 
the  riches  of  the  Gentiles ;   how  much  more  their 


1  Or,  trespaaa. 


may  be  supposed  to  have  been  the  case  with 
the  Psalmist  and  with  St.  Paul."  Paul,  how- 
ever, does  not  wish  these  imprecations,  but 
only  quotes  them  in  evidence  of  God's  rejec- 


design  and  eflfect,  through  their  conversion, 
to  provoke  them  (that  is,  the  Jews)  to  jeal- 
ousy [in  other  words,  "  to  make  them  jealous 
of  the  Gentiles  as  having  obtained  blessings 


tion  of  the  Jewish   people.     We  should  say,  ]  which  the  Jews  regarded  as  peculiarly  theirs; 
moreover,  that  Christians  are  to  bless,  except  !  and  thus  to  excite  in  them  a  desire  to  obtain 


when  divinely  commissioned  to  curse.] 

11.  From  this  point  begins  the  second  por- 
tion of  the  chapter,  showing  that  the  rejection 
of  the  Jews  is  not ^na^,  but  that  God  designs, 
by  means  of  it,  to  facilitate  the  salvation  of 
the  Gentiles  (verii-ie),  who  are  admonished 
not  to  glory  over  the  Jews  (17-22).  Have  they 
stumbled,  etc. — better.  Did  they  stumble,  in 
order  that  they  should  fall?  [that  is,  utterly 
and  forever  lie  prostrate?  The  word  trip 
might  here  be  substituted  for  '  stumble.'  The 
proper   word   for  stumble    occurs  at  9:    32. 


the  same  blessings  for  themselves."  (Ripley.) 
Noyeshasit:  excite  them  to  emulation.]  Of 
the  two  results  mentioned,  the  first  was  the 
more  immediate;  the  second  the  ultimate. 
This  latter  result  will  doubtless  be  realized 
hereafter  on  a  much  larger  scale  than  it  yet 
has  been.  The  unbelief  of  the  Jews  was  a 
benefit  to  the  Gentiles  in  several  ways.  It 
made  it  evident  that  God  did  the  Jews  no 
injustice  in  turning  to  offer  to  the  Gentiles 
those  blessings  which  the  Jews  had  rejected. 
See  Matt.  21  :  43 ;  Acts  13 :  46.     ["  Lo  we  turn 


'That'  (Vi-a)  indicates  the  final  purpose  of  the  to  the  Gentiles,"  not  only  willingly,  but  of 
divine  judicial  government.  (Lange.)  The  !  necessity.  (Acts.i8:6;  28:28.)]  It  left  the  apostles 
God  forbid  occurs  here  for  the  tenth  and  last  j  more  free,  and,  at  the  same  time,  more  willing 
time  in  this  Epistle.  In  Galatians  it  occurs  !  to  preach  the  gospel  to  the  Gentiles.  It  de- 
three  times,  in  First  Corinthians  once.]     The  |  prived   the  Jews  of  the   power  to  insist  on 


stumbling  of  the  Jews  was  not  to  result 
in  a  final  and  fatal  fall.  Far  from  it;  but 
through  their  fall  {offense,  as  the  same  word 
is  translated  six  times  in  chapter  oof  this  Epis- 
tle) salvation  is  come  unto  the  Gentiles.^ 
The  emphatic  sense  in  which  the  verb  'fall' 
is  here  used,  makes  it  unsuitable  that  its  cor- 
responding noun  (n-Tco/iia,  or  TTToxTts)  should  be 
used  to  express  that  stumbling  which  is  con- 


bringing  the  Gentiles  under  the  j-oke  of  the 
Mosaic  laws,  as  they  would  have  done  if  they 
had  beep  in  the  majoritj',  and  as  some  of 
them,  though  in  the  minority,  attempted  to 

do.       (Acts  15:1.) 

12.  Now  if  the  fall  of  them  be  the  riches 
of  the  world,  etc.  Meyer  calls  this  "an  ar- 
gument from  the  happy  effect  of  a  worse  cause 
to  the  still  happier  effect  of  a  better  cause." 


trasted  with  the  'fall.'     The  word  here  used  I  If  their  stumbling  has  been  the  means  of  en- 
is  translated  '  fall '  in  our  Common  Version  I  riching  the  Gentile  world  with  the  blessing  of 


only  in  this  and  the  following  verse.  It  was 
not  a  complete  and  final  '  fall '  on  their  part, 
because  it  was  not  a  complete  and  final  casting 
away  on  God's  part.  Besides  facilitating  the 
conversion  of  the  Gentiles,  it  had  the  further 


salvation,   how   much    greater    the    blessing 
which  will  result  from  their  fulness,  their 
general   recovery,   or   "their    numerous  en- 
trance into  God's  kingdom."! 
13,  14.  These  verses  seem  as  if  designed  to 


1  The  word  for' fall,' rendered  tre.fpass  in  the  Revis- 
ion, literally  means  a  falling  aside.  Chrysostom  remarks 
that  "as  Paul  had  greatly  run  the  Jews  down,  ana 
strung  accusation  upon  accusation,  bringing  forward 
prophet  afterprophet,  crying  out  against  th'jm, — Isaiah, 
Elijah,  Moses,  David,  and  Hosea, — and  that  not  once  or 
twice,  but  frequently;  so  now,  lest  he  might  plunge 
them  in  despair,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  that  he  might 


not  lift  the  believing  Gentiles  into  arrogance,  he  again 
consoles  the  Jews,  saying,  that  by  their  fall  salvation 
is  come  to  the  Gentiles."  In  this  conversion  of  the 
Gentiles  we  have  an  instance  of  the  last  becoming 
first.— (F.) 

2 The  word  TrArjpw^ia  (fullness)  is  found  eighteen  times 
in  the  New  Testament,  and  in  some  connections  is  a 
very  important  doctrinal  term.   See  Col.  2 :  9,  etc.   Elli- 


254 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  XI. 


13  For  I  spoak  to  you  Gentiles,  inasmuch  as  I  am 
the  apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  I  magnify  mine  office : 

14  If  by  any  means  1  may  jjiovoke  to  emulation 
them  which  are  my  flesh,  and  might  save  some  of  them. 

15  For  if  the  casting  away  of  them  be  the  reconciling 
of  the  world,  what  akall  the  receiving  of  them  be,  but 
life  from  the  dead  ? 


13  fulness?     But  I  speak   to   you    that  are  Gentiles. 
Inasmuch  then  as  I  am   an   apostle  of  Gentiles,  I 

14  glorify  my  ministry:  if  by  any  means  I  may  pro- 
voke to  jenlousy  them  that  are  my  tlesh,  and  luay 

15  save  some  of  them.    For  if  the  casting  away  of  i  hem 
is  the  reconciling  of  the  world,  what  shall  the  receiv- 

16  ing  of  them  be,  but  life  from  the  dead?    And  if  the 


forestall  some  such  thought  as  this  in  the 
minds  of  his  Gentile  readers.  In  writing  to 
us  (for  the  most  part)  Gentiles— ["  observe," 
says  Meyer,  "that  Paul  does  not  write  'to 
the  Gentiles  which  are  among  you'  "  ;  com- 
pare, also,  ver.  14,  my  (not  our)  flesh] — why 
do  you  express  so  much  interest  in  the  Jews, 
and  devote  so  large  a  space  in  your  letter  to 
their  condition  and  prospects?  To  which  his 
answer  is:  "I  do  not  forget  that  I  am  the 
apostle  of  the  Gentiles — indeed,  I  am  honor- 
ing my  office  as  such  in  this  way  of  speaking. 
I  cannot  do  you  a  greater  service  than  by 
doing  my  utmost  for  the  conversion  of  my 
own  people ;  for,  great  as  is  the  blessing  which 
you  obtain  through  their  rejection,  a  much 
greater  will  result  through  their  recovery." 
Provoke  to  emulation.  Compare  'provoke 
to  jealousy'  (ver.  ii  andio:  19)  ;  the  Original  word 
is  the  same  in  all  three  cases. ^  Might  save 
some  of  them.  Their  salvation  is  here  attri- 
buted to  the  human  agency  through  which  it 
is  brought  about,  as  in  1  Tim.  4:  16;  1  Cor. 
7:  16;  9;  22,  without  derogating  in  the  least 
from  what  is  so  emphatically  asserted  else- 
where of  the  divine  will  as  the  only  efficient 
cause  of  salvation.  See  John  1:  13,  14;  Eph. 
2:  8-10.2 

15.  The  idea  of  ver.  12  is  here  repeated  in 
still  more  forcible  language.  [For  assigns  a 
motive  for  ver.  13,  14.  The  word  for  casting 
away  occurs  elsewhere  only  in  Acts  27  ;  22. 
Philippi  understands  itof  the  ^oss  which  God's 
kingdom    has   sustained   in   their   case,   and 


which  is  to  be  made  up  by  the  fullness  of  the 
Gentiles.  It  seems,  however,  to  denote  rejec- 
tion as  being  antithetical  to  reception.  The 
thought  thus  would  be:  If  the  partial  and 
temporary  casting  away  of  the  Jews  (their 
loss  or  diminution)  is  the  means  of  the  Gentile 
world's  reconciliation  with  God — that  is,  their 
'riches.'  (ver.  12.)  On  this  reconcilation,  see 
Eph.  2:11-22.  To  this  day  the  Jews  are  a 
scattered  and  despised— in  fact,  a  God-rejected 
people.  They  have  lost  their  pre-eminence  as 
the  people  of  God.  And  this  accords  with  our 
Lord's  prediction  in  Matt.  21 :  43 :  "  The  king- 
dom of  God  shall  be  taken  away  from  j-ou." 
But  there  is  to  be  a  reception,  a  taking  of 
them  back  again.  And  what  will  the  in- 
gathering of  these  stiff-necked  and  inveterate 
enemies  of  Christ  within  the  Christian  fold  be 
to  the  world  but  life  from  the  dead?  The 
Jewish  race  has  thus,  as  a  "burning  bush" 
which  is  never  consumed,  been  "miraculously 
preserved  for  some  important  action  in  the 
concluding  chapter  of  the  history  of  Christi- 
anity." (Schaflf.)]  The  expression  life  from 
the  dead  is  taken,  by  most  of  the  early  inter- 
preters (Origen,  Chrysostom)  and  by  many  of 
the  modern  (De  Wette,  Mej'er,  etc.),  in  a 
literal  sense,  with  the  idea  that  the  recovery 
of  the  Jews  will  be  speedily  followed  by  the 
general  resurrection  and  the  final  judgment. 
But  this  would  be  a  sense  of  the  words  'life 
from  the  dead  '  which  would  not  be  in  accord- 
ance with  Scriptural  usage,  and  would  not  be 
sanctioned  by  either  the  preceding  or  the  fol- 


cottsays:  "  Lexically  considered,  it  has  three  possible 
meanings — one  active  (a)  implendi  actio,  fulfilling;  and 
two  passive  (b)  id  quod  impletum  est,  that  which  is  filled, 
Eph.  1 :  23,  and  the  more  common  (c)  id  quo  res  impletur, 
that  by  which  anything  is  filled,  which,  again,  often 
passes  into  the  neutral  and  derivative  (d)  affluentia, 
abundantia  (or  fullness),  especially  in  connection  with 
abstract  genitives."  Compare  15:  29;  Gal.  4:  4,  Eph. 
3:  19.— (F.) 

lit  is  in  this  clause  that  some  find  a  suppressed  it 
(but),  corresponding  to  the  it-iv  above.  Inasmuch  as, 
or,  in  so  far  as  I  indeed  am  the  apostle  of  the  Gentiles, 
I  glorify  my  oflSce  (preaching  zealously  to  the  Gentiles), 
but  in  this  I  have  the  benefit  of  the  Jews  in  view  (I  will 
thus  render  the  Jews  emulous).    Yet  this  view  does 


not  necessarily  exclude  the  idea  of  the  benefit  which 
would  ultimately  inure  to  the  Gentiles  from  the  restor- 
ation of  the  Jews.  Buttmann  thinks  the  y-iv  in  this 
connection  is  not  corresponsive,  but,  blended  with  the 
ovv,  is  a  particle  of  transition. — (F.)  , 

2  In  the  particle,  elVws  (if  by  any  means),  which  pre- 
cedes the  last  two  verbs,  and  which  introduces  the 
more  remote  result  of  his  Gentile  ministry,  "the  idea 
of  an  attempt  is  conveyed,  which  may  or  may  not  be 
successful."  (Ellicott.)  Buttmann  thinks  the  clause 
is  dependent  on  a  verb  like  see,  understood.  On  the 
use  of  the  indicative  future  after  (/(generally  rendered 
may  or  might),  see  Winer,  300.  The  them,  in  idea,  refers 
to  'my  flesh.'— (F.) 


Ch.  XL] 

16  For  if  the  firstfruit  be  holy,  the  lump  is  also  holy : 
and  if  the  root  he  holy,  so  are  the  lJ';a"c'"'«,-   ^  ^^  ^. 

17  Ami  if  some  of  the  hranches  be  broken  off,  and 
thou  bL-iug  a  wild  olive  tree,  wert  gratiud  in  among 
them,  and  with  them  partakest  of  the  root  and  fatness 
of  the  olive  tree  ;  


KOMANS. 


255 


firstfruit  is  holy,  so  is  the  lump:  and  if  the  root  is 
17  holy,  so  are  the  branches.  But  it  s<jme  ol  the 
braothes  were  broken  off,  and  thou,  being  a  wild 
olive  wast  grafted  in  among  them,  and  didst  be- 
come partaker  with  them  i  of  the  root  ol  the  latness 


1  Many  ancient  authorities  read  of  the  root  and  of  the  fatness. 


lowing  context.  But  the  ultimate  restoration 
of  the  Jews  to  the  favor  of  God  seems  here  to 
be  implied,  as  it  is  more  positively  still  a  little 
further  on.  [It  was  Paul's  modest  hope  to  be 
the  means  of  saving  only  'some'  Jews  and 
Gentiles  in  his  lifetime  (ver.u,  i  cor.9:'^2),  and 
we  cannot  suppose  that  he  at  this  time  ex- 
pected to  live  to  see  the  great  mass  of  the 
Gentile  and  Jewish  world  converted  to  God, 
or  that  the  blessed  resurrection  life,  "setting 
in  with  the  advent"  (rrapovaia)  (Meyer),  would 
happen  in  a  few  months  or  years.  Why,  on 
this  supposition,  as  Godet  asks,  use  the  expres- 
sion life  instead  of  the  usual  "  resurrection  "  ? 
And  why  omit  the  article  before  the  word 'life' 
and  not  say,  as  usual,  the  life,  eternal  life? 
The  truth  is,  'life'  is  often  used  in  the  sense 
of  highest  felicity  or  blessedness  (i  Thes3.3:8), 
and  'life  from  the  dead'  is  often  taken  in  a 
spiritual  sense.  (6:  is;  Luke  io:24,  3^,  eto.)  Paul 
thus  felt— and  so  may  we  feel— that  the  con- 
version of  Israel  to  Christ  would  be  a  blessed 
resurrection  life  to  the  world.  Compare  Ezek. 
37:1-11.] 

16.  For  if  the  firstfruit  be  holy,  the 
lump  is  also  holy:  and  if  the  root  be 
holy,  so  are  the  branches.  [The  student 
will  notice  that  in  the  Common  Version  the 
verbs  'be,'  'is'  and  'are'  have  been  supplied, 
because  they  are  omitted  in  the  Gi-eek.  This 
omission  is  quite  frequent  in  Paul's  writings.] 
Observe  the  propriety  of  the  terms  here  and 
tlieir  correspondence.  'The  firstfruit'  refers 
[not  to  the  Passover  sheaf  offering  (or,  omer 
offering),  nor  to  the  Pentecostal  two  wave 
loaves  (Lev.  23;  10, 17),  but  as  connected  with  the 
'lump,'  the  mixed  and  kneaded  dough]  to  the 
heave  offering  to  the  Lord,  of  a  cake  made 
from  the tirstofthedough (Num.  15:19-21), whereby 
the  whole  'lump'  was  regarded  as  consecrated. 
'The  root'  refers  to  the  patriarchal  progeni- 
tors of  the  race,  to  Abraham  especially,  in 
whom  'the  branches'— that  is,  his  natural 
posterity— were   regarded  as  consecrated   to 


God.     Compare  ver.  28.     That  the  holiness 
here   attributed   to   the   'lump'    and   to  the 
'branches,'  by  virtue  of  their  connection  with 
the   'firstfruit'   and  the  'root'   respectively, 
was  not  amoral  holiness,  such  as  accompanies 
salvation,  is  plain  from  abundant  testimonies 
of  Scripture,  such  as  Matt.  3:9;    John  8:33, 
39;  Rom.  2:  29;  and  from  the  context  in  this 
very   chapter.     In   the  carrying  out  of   the 
second  figure— the  first,  that  of  the  dough,  not 
being  followed  up  at  all— the  unbelieving  de- 
scendants of  Abraham— that  is,  those  of  them 
who    had    persistently    rejected    Christ— are 
styled  branches  broken  off.    (ver.  n,  i9, 20.)    And 
yet  there  is  a  fitness  in  referring  to  the  holi- 
ness of  '  the  root '  in  introducing  the  assurance 
of  the  final  restoration  of  Israel  to  God's  favor 
through  faith.     Holiness  is  habitually  attrib- 
uted in  the  Scriptures  to  that  which  has  been 
consecrated  to  God,  though  it  may  be  some 
inanimate>ebject,  incapable  of  possessing  any 
moral   quality.     So   when  God  shall  restore 
Israel   to  his  favor  through  their  individual 
repentance  and  faith,  he  will  but  reassert  his 
claim  to  that  which  was  all  along  his  own,  by 
the  right  of  an  ancient  and  solemn  consecra- 
tion. 

17,  18.  [And  if— better,  but  if.  If  notwith- 
standing this  consecration  of  Abraham's  race 
to  God,  some  of  the  branches  were  spiritually 
severed  from  the  parent  trunk.]  Some. 
More  than  this  was  actually  true.  Most,  not 
all,  of  the  branches  were  broken  off,  but  the 
apostle  speaks  in  a  way  less  offensive  to  the 
Jew  and  better  adapted  to  check  the  Gentile's 
pride.  And  thou.  Here  the  apostle  addresses 
himself  directly  to  the  believing  Gentile. 
Compare  3 : 3.  A  wild  olive  tree.  A  whole 
is  here  put  for  a  part,  a  tree  for  a  shoot;  or, 
jierhaps  the  word  should  be  regarded  as  an 
adjective  rather  than  a  noun,  in  which  case 
the  proper  translation  would  be  simply  wild 
olive.  Wert  graffed  in  among  them— 
among  the  branches  not  broken  off.^    Par- 


iSome  Christian  writers,  by  making  the  good  olive  I  constitution  and  character  we  considered  >"  note  "n 
*ree  hi  which  the  believing  Gentiles  are  grafted,  4 :  11),  have  inferred  that  the  so-eallod  JewihChuch 
;yn;nymous  with  the  Mosaic  national  theocracy  (whose    and  the  Christiau  Church  are  identical,  and  that  the 


256 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  XL 


18  Boast  not  against  the  branches.  But  if  thou 
boast,  thou  bearest  not  the  root,  but  tlie  root  thee. 

19  Thou  wilt  say  then,  The  branches  were  broken 
oflf,  that  I  might  be  gratl'ed  in. 

20  Well ;  because  of  unbelief  they  were  broken  off, 
and  thou  standest  by  faith.  Be  not  highminded,  but 
fear: 


18  of  the  olive  tree;  glory  not  over  the  branches:  but 
if  thou  gloriest,  it  is  not  ihou  that  bearest  the  root, 

19  but  the  root  thee.    Thou  wilt  say  then.  Branches 

20  were  broken  off,  that  I  might  be  grafted  in.  Well; 
by  their  unbelief  they  were  broken  off,  and  thou 
standest  by  thy  faith.    Be  not  highminded,  but  fear : 


takest  (better,  didst  become  partakers)  of  the 
root  and  fatness  of  the  olive  tree.  ["The 
'root'  is  a  figure  of  fellowship;  the  'fatness,' 
of  the  blessing  connected  with  it."  (De 
Wette. )  The  fatness  of  the  olive  is  a  Scrip- 
tural symbol  of  the  Holy  Spirit's  gracious 
influences.  The  Revised  Version  reads,  "root 
of  the  fatness,"  which  must  refer  to  the  rich- 
ness of  the  root,  or  the  root  as  "the  source  of 
fatness."  (Alford.)]  The  natural  process  of 
grafting  is  designed  not  to  make  the  graft 
partaker  of  the  nature  of  the  tree,  but  to  make 
the  fruit  partaker  of  the  nature  of  the  graft. 
The  apostle  reverses  this,  not  through  igno- 
rance, but  in  order  to  make  the  illustration 
suit  the  fact  illustrated.  And  he  might  do 
this  the  more  allowably,  as  he  does  not  speak 
directly  of  fruit,  but  of  life  and  growth,  in 
which  respects  the  tree  does  communicate  to 
the  graft,  and  not  the  graft  to  the  tree.  [Any 
grafting  may  be  said  to  be  "contrary  to  na- 
ture" (ver.24),  but  with  US  it  IS  contrary  both 
to  nature  and  to  practice  to  graft  a  wild  scio"n 
into  a  good  stock.  In  the  East,  however,  the 
scion  of  the  oleaster,  or  wild  olive,  is,  as  we 
are  told,  sometimes  grafted  in  the  good  olive, 
in  order  to  invigorate  the  tree.  Yet  the  pur- 
pose of  Paul  in  the  use  of  this  figure  does  not 
necessarily  infer  any  reference  to  this  custom. 


Indeed,  such  a  reference  would,  as  Alford 
saj's,  "completely  stultify  the  illustration," 
the  point  of  which  is  the  benefit  received 
rather  than  conferred  by  the  graft.  Boast 
not  (thou)  against  the  branches — namely, 
those  which  were  broken  oflT.]  After  the 
clause  but  if  thou  boast  we  may  easily  fill 
out  the  ellipsis  by  supplying  the  word  roneni- 
ber,  or  some  similar  word.  [On  the  ending 
of  the  verb,  see  at  2 :  17.  The  pronoun  with 
'not'  in  the  next  sentence  is  highly  emphatic: 
Not  thou  the  root  bearest.] 

19.  Thou  Avilt  say  then,  in  justification 
of  thy  boasting.  [The  Revised  Version  has 
simply  'branches;'  taken  indefinitely,  'some' 
branches,  as  in  ver.  17.  Nearly  all  the  uncial 
MSS.  omit  the  article.]  In  the  last  clause  of 
this  verse  the  pronoun  I  is  emphatic,  and 
betrays  a  disposition  to  boast. 

20.  Well  [or,  very  well.  Our  simple  word 
'weir  is  far  from  being  as  emphatic  as  the 
original.  (Boise.)]  The  fact  is  granted,  and 
when  the  reason  of  it  is  considered,  it  suggests 
a  new  argument  against  boasting,  a  new  ad- 
monition against  highmindedness.  This  verse 
shows  that  the  branches  broken  off  represent 
only  those  who  had  actually  disbelieved  the 
gospel,  and  not  those  to  whom  it  had  not  yet 
been  fairly  preached.     Of  these,  there  were 


ordinances  of  Judaism  are  simply  changed  in  form  by 
their  introduction  into  Christianity,  but  remain  the 
same  in  substance,  and  are  still  to  be  administered  in 
accordance  with  their  primitive  rule.  We  may  grant 
without  hesitation,  that  the  spiritual  Israel  and  the 
Christian  Israel  are  substantially  the  same,  so  that 
when  Christ's  "other  sheep"  are  brought  in  from 
among  the  Gentiles  (John  10 :  16)  there  will  be  but  "  one 
flock  and  one  shepherd."  But  to  infer  from  this  that 
the  ordinances  of  Christianity  are  similar  in  character 
and  import  to  those  of  Judaism,  and  are  to  be  similarly 
administered,  is  to  put  a  strain  upon  the  argument 
which  it  cannot  bear.  One  may,  perhaps,  say.  with 
Godct,  that,  in  Paul's  view,  "the  believers  of  Israel  are 
the  nucleus  round  which  are  grouped  the  converts  from 
among  the  Gentiles;"  yet  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that 
this  "Israel"  had  first  to  be  converted  to  Christ  and 
the  gospel.  "Otherwise,"  as  the  same  writer  remarks, 
"the  gospel  would  have  been  Judaized,  believing  Gen- 
tiles would  have  been  required  to  become  proselytes  of 


Israel,  and  this  would  have  been  an  end  of  salvation 
for  the  world  and  of  the  world  for  salvation."  In  this 
sense,  as  Meyer  says,  "Israel  does  not  take  in  the 
church  but  the  church  takes  in  Israel,"  and  hence  the 
apostle  speaks  of  the  receiving  of  the  believing  Jews 
virtually  into  the  Christian  fold.  It  was  the  effort  of 
the  apostle's  life  "  to  disentangle  the  cause  of  the  gospel 
from  that  of  Judaism,"  and  in  his  zeal  to  effect  this  he 
showed,  on  one  occasion,  no  more  regard  for  the  chiefest 
of  the  Mosaic  ordinances  than  to  cry  out:  "Beware  of 
the  concision."  (Phil.  3:2.)  Our  Saviour,  also,  was  too 
wise  to  endeavor  to  patch  up  with  new  cloth  the  old 
garment  of  the  worn-out  past  or  to  put  the  new  wine  of 
the  gospel  into  the  old  skin  bottles  of  Judaism.  Listen, 
also,  to  Peter's  discourse  on  the  day  of  Pentecost: 
"  Repent,  and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you  in  the  name 
of  Jesus  Christ."  Was  not  this  a  new  voice  to  be  heard 
in  Isr.iel?  And  did  it  not  more  than  intimate  a  new 
economy  in  the  kingdom  of  grace? — (F.) 


Ch.  XL] 


ROMANS. 


257 


21  For  if  God  spared  not  the  natural  branches,  take 
heed  lest  lie  also  spare  not  tliee. 

22  Behold  tlifrelore  the  goodness  and  severity  of 
(Jod:  oil  them  which  fell,  severity;  but  toward  thee, 
goodness,  if  thou  continue  in  his  goodness:  otherwise 
thou  also  shult  be  cut  oil. 


21  for  if  God  spared  not  the  natural  branches,  neither 

22  will  he  spare  thee.  Heboid  then  the  goodness  and 
severity  of  (iod:  toward  them  that  fell,  severity ; 
but  toward  thee,  (iod's  goodness,  if  thou  continue  in 
bis  goodness:  otherwise  thou  also  shall  be  cut  oU'. 


not  a  few  who  would  yet  believe  and  be  num- 
bered among  the  saved  remnant.  [The  words 
for  unbelief  and  faith  are  in  the  so-called 
instrumental  dative,  which  is  generally  trans- 
lated f>>/  or  through.  The  word  standest  in 
our  text  is  used  antithetically  to  falling  ('*:*), 
though  some  refer  it  to  the  standing  as  of  a 
branch  upon  the  olive  tree.  Paul,  it  will  be 
noticed,  forgets  here  to  say  that  these  Jews 
were  broken  off  from  the  stock  of  the  spiritual 
Israel  and  cast  away  by  reason  of  the  absolute 
decree  of  Jehovah ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  he 
charges  their  rejection  solely  to  their  own 
fault— their  want  of  faith.  Nor  did  these 
Jews  ever  think  of  charging  their  want  of 
faith  to  God's  decree  of  reprobation.  And 
yet  this  unbelief  of  theirs  was  connected  with 
a  divine  purpose.]  Be  not  highminded, 
but  fear.  The  'fear'  which  the  Gentile  be- 
liever is  here  admonished  to  cherish  is  opposed 
not  so  much  to  confidence,  as  to  presumption 
and  careless  living.  [The  present  imperative 
(as  in  the  case  of  the  last  two  verbs)  denotes 
"an  action  already  begun  and  to  be  con- 
tinued, or  one  that  is  permanent  and  fre- 
quently recurring."  (Winer.)  For  example: 
'Be  not  highminded'  (as  thou  now  art).  So 
in  12:  20:  "If  thine  enemy  hunger,  feed 
him"  (constantly  in  such  a  case).  "It  is  a 
characteristic,"  sa3's  Philippi,  "of  the  differ- 
ence between  the  ethics  of  the  ancient  world 
and  of  Christianity,  that  a  Greek  uses  'high- 
minded'  in  a  good  sense  and  'humble- 
minded'  in  a  bad  sense.''] 

21.  [If,  here  equivalent  to  since,  hence  the 
use  of  the  direct  negative  in  the  original.] 
Take  heed.  These  words  are  supplied  by 
the  translators,  it  being  necessary  to  supply 
some  such  words  to  express  the  sense  of  the 
original  completelj',  as  in  ver.  18,  where, 
however,  our  translators  have  left  the  mani- 
fest ellipsis  to  be  filled  out  by  the  reader, 
instead  of  doing  the  work  for  him,  as  thej' 
have  done  here.  [Lest — omitted  by  the  Ke- 
visers,  is  usually  followed  by  the  subjunctive, 
and  serves  here  to  soften  what  otherwise  would 


be  a  menace  into  a  simple  warning.  I  fear, 
or,  it  is  to  be  feared,  lest  he  will  not  spare 
even  thee.  ("Winer,  474.)  "With  the  Revisers' 
text  no  words  need  be  supplied.] 

22.  Behold  therefore  the  goodness  and 
severity  of  God.'  Both  'goodness'  and  'se- 
verity '  on  the  part  of  God  are  seen  in  very 
close  connection  in  his  dealings  with  the  Jews 
and  the  Gentiles,  in  the  beginning  of  the 
gospel  history.  On  them  which  fell  from 
their  high  privileges  through  unbelief,  as 
the  branch  falls  to  the  ground  when  severed 
from  the  tree,  severity;  but  toward  thee, 
goodness.  [According  to  the  Revisers'  text 
we  should  have  this  rendering:  upon  them 
that  fell  severity  is  shown,  or,  there  is  severity 
—the  nominative  form  being  used  rather  than 
the  objective.  The  word  for  'severity  '  means 
literally,  a  cutting  off,  and  carries  out  the 
figure  of  the  branches  broken  off  and  falling 
from  the  tree.  It  occurs  nowhere  else  in  tlie 
New  Testament.  The  word  'goodness'  (in 
the  Revision  :  "toward  thee,  God's  goodness") 
primarily  denotes  usefulness,  serviceableness.] 
The  Gentile  believer  is  here  directly  addressed 
as  in  each  of  the  five  preceding  verses.  If 
thou  continue  in  (literally,  abide  upon)  his 
goodness— if  thou  continue  in  that  state  of 
faith  into  which  his  goodness  has  brought 
thee,  and  on  thy  continuance  in  which  his  favor 
depends.  (Acts is:  13.)  [Otherwise  thou  also 
Shalt  be  cut  off.  'Thou  also,'  thou  Gentile 
as  well  as  the  Jew.  "The  future  passive,  'thou 
shalt  be  cut  off'  (by  striking  or  smiting) 
abruptly  closes  the  sentence,  like  the  stroke  of 
the  axe  cutting  down  the  proud  branch." 
(Godet. )  Some  find  in  the  latter  part  of  this 
verse  a  proof  text  for  the  possibility  of  an 
individual's  falling  from  grace.  But  the 
apostle  here  is  speaking  of  the  people  collect- 
ively and  not  of  particular  individuals.  And 
Dr.  Hodge  goes  so  far  to  aflSrm  that  "there  is 
nothing  in  this  (hypothetical)  language  incon- 
sistent with  the  doctrine  of  the  final  persever- 
ance of  believers,  even  supposing  the  passage 
to  refer  to  individuals."]  These  last  five  verses 


1 '  Behold'  (I5«),  imperative  second  aorist  of  hhov,  sometimes  a  mere  exclamation  (John  19:  14),  here  governs 
the  accusative.— (F.) 

B 


258 


KOMANS. 


[Ch.  XI. 


23  And  they  also,  if  they  ahide  not  still  in  unbelief, 
shall  be  grafted  in :  for  God  is  able  to  graflf  them  in 
again. 

21  For  if  thou  wert  cut  out  of  the  olive  tree  which  is 


23  And  they  also,  if  they  continue  not  in  their  unbe- 
lief, shall  be  grafted  in :  for  God  is  able  to  graft  them 

24  in  again.    For  if  thou  wast  cut  out  of  that  which  is 


are  marked  by  repeated  and  empliatic  warn- 
ings to  Gentile  believers  against  falling  from 
a  state  of  favor  with  God,  as  the  Jews  had 
fallen,  after  the  same  example  of  unbelief. 
And  the  warning  is  equally  appropriate,  and 
equally  needful,  to  believers  at  the  present 
time. 

23.  And  they  also.i  The  restoration  of 
the  Jews  is  here  represented  hypothetic-ally, 
as  something  which  God  is  perfectly  able  to 
accomplish.  If  the  cause  of  their  rejection  is 
removed,  if  they  do  not  persist  in  their  unbe- 
lief, the  only  hindrance  to  their  restoration 
will  be  takqn  away.  The  association  of  will- 
ingness with  power  is  intimated  in  such 
passages  as  Rom.  14:  4;  16:  25;  2  Cor.  9 :  8; 
Eph.  3:  20;  Heb.  7:  25;  11:  19;  Jude  24. 
[For  God  is  able.  The  position  of  the 
Greek  adjective  for  'able'  at  the  beginning 
of  the  sentence  gives  it  groat  stress.  We 
cannot  suppose  that  Paul  here  represents 
the  power  of  God  as  waiting  for  unbelieving 
Jews  to  give  up  their  unbelief,  for  on  this 
supposition  there  would  be,  as  De  Wette 
states  it,  no  need  for  the  exercise  of  the  divine 
omnipotence.  This  last-named  commentator 
further  says,  that  "the  apostle  here  obscurely 
includes  in  the  grafting  in,  also  the  removal 
of  their  unbelief  and  the  awakening  of  faith, 
and  these  especially  he  looks  for  from  above." 
Until  this  day,  alas,  the  same  thick  veil  of 
prejudice  and  unbelief  lies  on  their  hearts, 
and  though  God  has  destroyed  their  temple 
and  their  altars,  has  abolished  their  priest- 
hood, and  the  law  on  which  it  and  all  the 
Levitical  rites  were  founded,  has  blotted  out 


their  tribal  distinctions  and  scattered  their 
people  all  over  the  earth,  and  though  very 
many  of  tbem  bave  now  become  advanced 
rationalists,  denying  the  miracles  and  the 
historic  verity  of  the  Old  Testament,  they  yet, 
as  a  general  thing,  cling  to  a  few  of  the 
ancient  ceremonials,  and  still  keep  up  their 
wonted  isolation  from  all  the  rest  of  man- 
kind." But  God  is  able  to  graft  them  in. 
To  the  ap'  stle,  not  only  at  the  time  of  writing 
this  Epistle,  but  especially  in  after  years,  in 
this  very  city  of  Rome,  when  he  sought  to 
persuade  the  Jews  concerning  Jesus  from 
morning  till  evening,  while  some  believed 
and  others  disbelieved,  and  they  could  come 
to  no  agreement  among  themselves,  this  must 
have  been  his  sole  encouraging  and  sustain- 
ing thought,  '  God  is  able  to  grafF  them  in.' 
God  is  already  bringing  the  world  together  as 
neighbors  and  to  a  common  brotherhood,  and, 
by  his  power,  the  remnant  of  Israel  will  yet 
be  brought  to  Christ,  where  there  is  neither 
Jew  nor  Greek,  and  so  all  Israel  shall  be 
saved.] 

24.  Paul  now  proceeds  a  step  further,  and 
argues  from  the  nature  of  the  case  that  there 
is  a  presumption  in  favor  of  God's  doing  that 
which  he  certainly  has  power  to  do  in  this  mat- 
ter!  [The  for  introducing  additional  evidence 
for  their  future  re-ingrafting.]  And  from  this 
point  to  the  end  of  ver.  32,  he  more  distinctly 
affirms,  by  virtue  of  his  prophetic  gift,  the 
divine  purpose  that  Israel  shall  be  restored. 
The  course  of  thought  in  these  verses  is  thus 
traced  by  Dr.  Hackett.  "Not  only  is  God 
able  and  willing  to  receive  the  Jews  again,  if 


'  Kal,  hi,  the  former  connects,  the  latter  slightly  con- 
trasts. Grafting  them  '  again  '  (unless  we  take  ■naki.v 
in  the  sense  of  back)  supposes  a  prior  grafting  which  in 
their  case  did  not  take  place.  The  meaning  is  :  "  again 
to  unite  them  to  the  stock— namely,  by  ingrafting." 
(Winer.)— (F.) 

*  If  any  Christian  brother  wishes  to  abjure  Christian- 
ity and  become  a  strict  orthodox  Jew,  and  thus  virtu- 
ally eschew  his  relation  to  a  common  humanity,  it  will 
be  needful  for  hlni,  among  other  things,  to  acquire  a 
sufficient  knowledge  of  Hebrew,  in  order  that  he  may 
pronounce  Israel's  confession  of  faith  and  read  the 
prayers,  to  submit  to  circumcision  as  performed  by  the 
"Mohel,"  to  immerse  himself  in  water,  to  adopt  a  new 


name,  to  observe  the  Levitical  dietary  laws,  to  abstain 
from  intermarriage  with  other  creeds,  to  commence  the 
Sabbath  Friday  afternoon,  half  an  hour  before  sunset, 
and  generally  to  attend  to  the  observances  of  the  syna- 
gogue, of  Jewish  festival  days,  Jewish  marriage,  Jewish 
burial,  etc.  Thus  doing  he  will  become  a  Jew,  and  we 
may  say,  a  Pharisee,  owe  separated  not  only  from  Christ, 
but  virtually  from  the  common  brotherhood  of  man. 
The  reformed  Jews  are  disposed  to  loosen  some  of  these 
obligations,  while  those  of  the  radical  reform  party  are 
ready  to  give  up,  not  only  this  non-intermarriage,  but 
even  the  Sabbath  and  circumcision,  the  two  funda- 
mental principles  of  Judaism — (F.) 


Ch.  XI.] 

wild  by  uature,  and  wert  graffed  contrary  to  nature 
into  a  good  olive  tree;  how  much  more  shall  these, 
which  be  the  natural  branches,  be  graded  into  their 
own  olive  tree?  ,      , ,  ,    ■ 

'>o  For  I  would  not,  brethren,  that  ye  should  be  ignor- 
ant of  this  mystery,  lest  ye  sho<ild  be  wi>e  in  your  own 
cnnceits,  that  blindness  in  part  is  happened  to  Israel, 
until  the  fulness  of  the  Gentiles  be  come  in. 


ROMANS. 


259 


they  will  repent,  but  he  distinctly  announces 
his  purpose  to  secure  their  repentance  and 
consequent  restoration  to  his  favor:  the  ti>ne 
of  this  event  being  when  many  Gentiles  shall 
have  been  converted  (ver.25)  ;  the  means  of  it, 
tlie  effect  this  will  have  to  remind  the  Jews  of 
their  duty  (ver.  31);  and  the  pledge  of  it,  the 
declarations  of  Scripture  (ver.  26, 27),  and  the 
unalterable  faithfulness  of  God  to  his  purposes 
and  promises."  (ver.27,29.)  [The  expression 
contrary  to  nature  probably  refers  to  the 
grafting  process  in  general,  considered  as  an 
artificial  proceeding.  If  it  meant,  contrary 
to  thy  (wild)  nature,  the  pronoun,  or  at  least 
the  article,  would  have  been  prefixed  to  'na- 
ture.' These,  which  be  the  natural 
branches  are  represented  as  having  been 
'broken  oflf,'  yet  it  would  be  pressing  the 
figure  too  far  to  suppose  that,  in  the  apostle's 
mind,  such  dissevered  branches  could  be 
engrafted.  The  disbelieving  Jews  are  here 
simply  regarded  as  branches  which  originally 
and  by  nature  belonged  to  the  good  and  holy 
olive  tree  "whose  root  the  patriarchs  are" 
(Meyer),  and  hence  tliis  is  their  own  olive 
tree.] 

25,  26.  [For  introduces  a  corroboration 
that  they  shall  be  grafted  in,  which  is  de- 
rived from  divine  revelation.  Compare  with 
this  Eph.  3:  3  6]  I  would  not,  brethren, 
that  ye  should  be  ignorant  of  this  mys- 
tery is  used  to  announce  some  important 
and  authoritative  declaration  of  divine  truth 

(1  Cor.  10:  1;  1  Thess.  4:  13)  ;  or  SOmC  faCtS  in  hisOWn 

history  not  previously  known  to  his  readers. 
(1 :  13 ;  2  Cor.  1 :  8.)  Tlic  word  '  mystery '  is  applied 
— 1.  To  such  matters  of  fact  as  are  inaccessible 
to  reason,  and  can  only  be  known  through 
divine  revelation.    (i6: 25;  i  cor.  2:  710;  Eph.  i:  9.  lO; 

S:  4-6;  6:  19;  Col.  1:  26,  27.)      2.    To    SUCll    matters    aS 

are  patent  facts,  but  the  process  of  which  can- 
not be  entirely  taken  by  the  reason,  (i  cor.i3:2; 

14:  2;  Eph.5:  32;  1  Tim.  3 :  9,16.)   3.    To  matters  which 


by  nature  a  wild  olive  tree,  and  wast  grafted  con- 
trary to  nature  into  a  good  olive  tree:  how  much 
more  shall  these,  which  are  the  natural  brane/us,  be 
grafted  into  their  own  olive  tree? 
25  For  I  would  not,  brethren,  have  you  ignorant  of 
this  mystery,  lest  ye  be  wise  in  your  own  conceits, 
that  a'hardeuiugiu  part  bath  belalleu  Israel,  until 


are  no  mystery  in  themselves,  but  by  their 

figurative   import.       (Matt.  12:  ll;  Mark  4:  U;  Luke  8: 
10;  2  Thess.  2:  7:  Rev.  1  :  20;  17:  5.)       (Tholuck.)        The 

first  definition  applies  here.  That  peculiar 
character  of  the  gospel  which  placed  the  Gen- 
tiles on  the  same  level  with  the  Jews  was  in 
direct  opposition  to  the  strongest  expectations 
and  prejudices  of  the  Jewish  people,  and  next 
to  the  ofTense  of  the  cross  was  perhaps  the 
strongest  obstacle  in  the  way  of  their  embrac- 
ing Christianity.  Compare  the  parable  of  the 
prodigal  son,  Luke  15:  25-30.  "The  calling 
of  tlie  Jews  was  a  mystery,  the  conversion  of 
the  Jews  is  so  still."  (Bengel.)  [The  word 
'mystery'  is  in  the  accusative  case  after  the 
verb  'to  be  ignorant  of '  yayvotlv),  nearly  equiv- 
alent to/ail  to  perceive.  On  this  word  '  mys- 
tery,' De  Wette  says:  "The  apostle  here 
speaks  as  a  prophet."  A  Scripture  mystery 
or  secret  -which  cannot  in  general  be  under- 
stood without  a  revelation  is  not  that  of 
clas.sical  antiquity,  a  something  mysterious  in 
itself,  comprehensible  only  to  the  initiated, 
and  to  be  concealed  from  the  profane  (Meyer; ; 
nor  is  it  on  the  other  hand  an  altogether  un- 
intelligible, incomprehensible  revealed  truth 
or  doctrine.]  Lest  ye  should  be  wise  in 
your  own  conceits.  [Literally,  that  ye 
may  not  be  wise  tvith  yourselves.^]  Compare 
Prov.  2G :  12,  16.  "  Lest  ye  should  take  to 
yourselves  credit  for  superior  wisdom  above 
the  Jews,  in  that  ye  have  acknowledged  and 
accepted  .Jesus  as  the  Son  of  God."  Blind- 
ness (or  rather,  hardness)  in  part— this  hard- 
ness extending  onlj'  to  a  part  of  the  nation 
through  a  joari'of  theirhistorj'— is  happened 
to  Israel.  [The  article  is  used  with  '  Israel' 
to  indicate  the  case.  Calvin  interprets  '  in 
part'  of  a  partial  hardening,  but  see  'some' 
in  ver.  17.]  The  fulness  of  the  Gentiles 
can  hardly  mean  less  than  the  whole  number 
of  the  Gentile  nations.  So  theword  'fulness' 
is  used  in  ver.  12,  of  the  Jews  as  interpreted 


1  The  MSS.  A  B  have  in  yourselves.    Notice  how  the  I  selves  (as  judges),  in  your  own  estimation,  in  your  own 
third  person  (themselves)  is  here  used  for  the  second,    eyes."— (F.) 
Winer  interprets  fapa  with  the  dative:  "  6f/ore  your- J 


260 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  XI. 


26  And  so  all  Israel  shall  be  saved:  as  it  is  written 
There  shall  come  out  of  Sion  the  Deliverer,  and  shall 
turn  away  ungodliness  from  Jacob: 

27  For  this  is  my  covenant  unto  them,  when  I  shall 
take  away  their  sins. 


26  the  fulness  of  the  Gentiles  be  come  in  ;   and  so  all 
Israel  shall  be  saved:  even  as  it  is  written, 

There  shall  come  out  of  Zion  the  Deliverer; 
He  shall  turn  away  •  un^codliness  from  Jacob: 

27  And  this  is  ^my  covenant  unto  them. 
When  I  shall  take  away  their  sins. 


1  Gr.  ungodlinesses..     .  .2  Gr.  the  covenant  from  me. 


by  ver.  26.'  Be  come  in — that  is,  into  the 
kingdom  of  God  where  the  writer  and  his 
readers  already  were.  And  so,  in  the  man- 
ner, order,  and  time  indicated,  all  Israel 
shall  be  saved — that  is,  the  literal  Israel,  in 
the  collective  sense  of  the  word,  all  the  pos- 
terity of  Jacob.  That  the  word  is  to  be  taken 
in  this  sense  and  not  in  the  sense  of  the  spirit- 
ual Israel,  including  the  Gentiles,  is  fairly 
inferred  from  the  sharp  distinction  between 
Jews  and  Gentiles  observed  throughout  this 
whole  section  ;  see  9:  24,  30,  31 ;  10:  12,  19-21 ; 
11 :  11,  12,  13,  and  especially  in  the  immediate 
context,  ver.  17,  31.  [In  our  view  Paul  teaches 
that  when  the  great  mass  or  multitude  of  the 
Gentiles  shall  have  accepted  a  Jewish  Saviour 
and  a  salvation  which  is  from  the  Jews,  and 
shall  have  entered  into  the  Messianic  king- 
dom, then  the  Jews  themselves,  'provoked  to 
emulation,'  will  be  ashamed  to  hold  out  longer 
in  their  opposition  and  exclusiveness,  and 
Israel  as  a  whole,  perhaps  "the  whole  nation 
which  shall  then  be  in  existence"  (Prof 
Turner),  will  accept  of  Jesus  as  their  Messiah, 
and  the  unspeakably  blessed  influence  of  their 
reception  witiiin  the  Christian  fold  will  extend 
all  over  the  Gentile  world,  (ver.12,  i5.)  2  But 
there  is  no  necessity  for  supposing  that  every 
single  individual  Jew  then  living  will  be  con- 
verted to   Christ.      As   Alford  says:    "'All 


Israel  shall  be  saved,'  Israel  as  a  nation,  not 
individuals;  nor  is  there  the  slightest  ground 
for  the  notion  of  the  universal  restoration" 
(an-oKaTao-Tacrts.)  oi  all  the  Jcws  who  ever  lived — 
the  outcast  sons  of  the  kingdom  and  Judas 
himself  not  excepted.  We  may  also  add  },hat 
tiie  apostle  is  wholly  silent  as  to  any  restora- 
tion of  the  Jews  to  Palestine  (maintained  by 
Delitzsch,  Ebrard,  and  manj'  others),  or  as  to 
any  future  personal  reign  of  Christ  on  David's 
throne  at  Jerusalem.  "Nowhere,"  says  De 
Wette  (1  Thess. 4:  17)  "is  there  in  Paul's  writings 
aclear  traceof  an  earthl3-  kingdom  of  Christ."] 
As  it  is  written  in  Isa.  59:  20,  '21.  The 
passage  is  quoted  neither  literally  nor  fully. 
OurOld  Testament  has  "to  Zion  "  [the  LXX., 
"on  account  of  Zion"]  instead  of  out  ol 
Sion,^  and  "unto  them  that  turn  from  trans- 
gression in  Jacob"  instead  of  (the  Septuagint 
rendering)  shall  turn  away  ungodliness 
(literally,  lUigodlinesses)  from  Jacob.  In 
both  cases  the  English  of  the  Old  Testament 
is  closer  to  the  Hebrew.  [This  verse  brings 
the  Jew  tq  a  truly  joyful  outlook  after  a  long 
dark  way  of  rejection  and  hardening.] 

27.  For  this  is  my  covenant  unto  them 
[literally,  the  covenant  (proceeding) //-ow*  me] 
when  I  shall  take  away  their  sins.  The 
first  clause  isa  continuation  (not  a  completion) 
of  the  quotation  begun  in  the  preceding  verse 


1  This  is  the  view  of  commentators  generally.  But 
Philippi  and  a  few  others  regard  this  irArjpiofia  or  full- 
ness as  a  supplement  from  the  Gentiles  which  shall 
fill  up  a  deficiency  in  Israel  arising  from  the  unbeliev- 
ing Jews;  just  as  if  Paul  had  written :  until  Israel's 
TrAijpwuo  from  the  Gentiles  have  come  in.  But  this 
seems  rather  far  fetched  and  does  not  accord  with  the 
general  usage  of  the  word. — (F.) 

-  Many  of  the  Reformers  thought  that  the  great  body 
of  the  Jews — so  stiff-necked  and  hard-hearted  were 
they — would  never  be  converted,  not  even  when  the 
fullness  of  the  Gentiles  had  come  in.  Luther,  in  his 
conviction  of  their  depravity,  asserted  that  "  a  Jewish 
heart  is  as  hard  as  stock,  stone,  iron,  or  devil,  which 
can  in  no  way  be  moved."  And  Calvin  interpreted  'all 
I.srael '  to  mean  the  spiritual  Israel  gathered  from  both 
Jews  and  Gentiles.  Beza  seems  to  have  been  more 
hopeful  of  their  conversion.  Bengel,  Olshausen,  and 
now  Philippi  (in  his  Appendix  to  the  Third  Edition) 


regard  'all  Israel' as  the  remnant  according  to  the 
election  of  grace — in  other  words,  the  elect  and  believ- 
ing Jews.  But  Meyer  sees  no  •  mystery '  in  this  view, 
and  certainly  it  does  not  seem  much  for  Paul  to  say 
that  the  elect  Jews  will  be  saved.  See  2  Cor.  3  :  14-16, 
where  Paul  speaks  of  the  vail  lying  on  the  Jewish 
heart,  which,  ujion  their  turning  to  the  Lord,  shall  be 
taken  away.— (F.) 

"  St.  Paul  probably  had  in  his  mind  such  passages 
as  Ps.  14 :  7,  where  '  out  of  Zion  '  is  found."  (Olshausen.) 
Compare  Ps.  53:  6;  110:  2  in  LXX.  "Zion  is  the  centre 
and  capital  of  the  theocracy,  but  the  Messiah  must  first 
take  up  his  abode  there  before  he  can  issue  from  it." 
(Sanday.)  The  Hebrew  signifies  to  Zion  or  /or,  with  re- 
spect to,  Zion,  and  so  "even  Paul's  translation,  'from 
Zion,'  although  it  seems  completely  to  reverse  the 
sense,  is  not  so  wholly  inconsistent  with  it  as  has  some- 
times been  pretended."    (J.  A.  Alexander.) — (F.) 


Ch.  XL] 


ROMAN'S. 


261 


28  As  concerning  the  gospel,  they  are  enemies  for  voiir 
sakes  :  but  as  toucbiug  the  election,  they  are  beloved  lor 
the  fathers'  sakes.  „        ,  •..       • 

2<t  For  the  gifts  and  calling  of  God  are  without  re- 
pentance. .  .  ,    ,.       1^-1 

30  For  as  ve  in  times  past  have  not  believed  God, 
yet  have  now" obtained  mercy  through  their  unbelief : 

31  Even  so  have  these  also  now  not  believed,  that 
through  your  mercy  they  also  may  obtain  mercy. 


28  As  touching  the  gospel,  they  are  enemies  for  your 

sake  :  but  as  touching  the  election,  they  are  beloved 

2!)  for  the  fathers'  sake.     For  the  gifts  and  the  calling 

30  of  God  aie  '  without  repentance.     For  as  ye  in  time 
past  were  disobedient  to  God,  but  now  have  obtained 

31  mercy  bv  their  disobedience, even  so  have  these  also 
now  been  disobedient,  that  by  the  mercy  shewn  to 

32  you  they  also  may  now  obtain  mercy.    For  God  hath 


1  Gr.  not  repented  of. 


[compare  Jer.  31 :  31,  seq. ;  LXX.  38:  31] ;  the 

second  clause  is  from  Isa.  27:  9  [see  Septua- 
gint  Version].  Putting  both  passages  together, 
and  adding  what  is  omitted  from  the  first,  we 
have,  as  the  fulfillment  or  consummation  of 
God's  covenant  with  Israel,  conversion  from 
ungodliness  and  remission  of  sin.  [Meyer, 
Philippi,  and  De  Wette  likewise  refer  the 
'this'  to  what  follows.  The  latter  thus  ex- 
plains the  passage  :  "In  this  consists  my  cove- 
nant with  them  that  I  shall  have  taken  away 
their  sins.''] 

28.  As  concerning  the  gospel,  they  are 
enemies  for  your  sakes.  As  rejecters  of 
the  gospel,  they  are  displeasing  to  God  and 
exposed  to  his  just  wrath;  his  enemies,  not 
in  the  active  sen.se  of  being  opposed  to  him, 
but  in  the  passive  sense  of  being  those  to 
whom  he  is  opposed.  That  this  is  the  true 
explanation  of  the  word  'enemies'  appears 
from  the  preceding  context  (ver. -,  8, 15,22),  and 
still  more  from  the  contrasted  word  '  beloved ' 
in  this  same  verse.  They  were  excluded  from 
God's  favor  by  the  rejection  of  the  gospel,  in 
order  that  all  its  blessings  might  come  to  you 
Gentiles.  [Hence  they  may  be  said  to  be 
God's  enemies,  or  that  God  treated  them  as 
enemies,  not  only  on  account  of  their  rejection 
of  the  gospel,  but  also  because  of,  or  for  the 
sake  of  its  acceptance  by  the  Gentiles.  Of 
course,  God  may  justly  hate  the  sinner  as 
such,  or  his  sinful  character  and  life,  while 
he  loves  "the  man  created  in  his  image,  and 
forwhom  his  Son  died."  (Godet.)]  But  as 
touching  the  election,  the  choice  of  them 
by  God  as  his  own  people,  beloved  for  the 
fathers'  sakes.     Not  for  the  merits  of  the 


fathers  [compare  Deut.  9 :  5,  seq.  ],  but  because 
of  the 'covenant'  made  with  Abraham,  re- 
newed to  Isaac  and  Jacob,  and  destined  to 
have  at  last,  as  above  shown,  a  glorious  con- 
summation. [Meyer  interprets  the  election 
here  as  meaning  the  elect  remnant.] 

29.  For  the  gifts  and  calling  of  God 
[gracious  gifts,  in  general;  and  God's  calling 
of  the  Jews  to  be  his  people,  and  thus  to  a 
glorious  destination,  in  particular.  The  'for' 
introduces  a  confirmation  of  the  latter  half  of 
the  preceding  verse]  Without  repentance 
means,  simply,  "unrepented  of"  on  his  part. 
["The  word  is  emphatic  by  position,  and  de- 
notes the  unchangeableness  of  the  divine 
purpose."  (Shedd.)  Obviously  this  same 
principle  holds  true  of  all  God's  special  gifts 
of  grace  to  individual  believers.'  "While  the 
apostle  at  other  times  makes  the  participation 
in  the  Abrahamic  promises  dependent  on 
faith,  he  here  hopes  everything  from  God's 
mercy,  as  in  ver.  23,  of  his  omnipotence." 
(De  Wette.)] 

30,  31.  These  verses  end  by  showing  how 
God's  unrepented  purpose  of  mercy  toward 
the  Jewish  nation  is  ultimately  to  have  its  ful- 
fillment ;  and  therefore  they  are  appropriately 
introduced  by  for.  As  ye  (Gentiles)  in  times 
past  have  not  believed  (or,  as  in  Revised 
Version,  were  disobedient  to)  God,  yet  have 
now  obtained  mercy  through  their  unbe- 
lief (or,  disobedience),  even  so  have  these 
also  now  not  believed  (disobeyed,  or,  become 
disobedient)  in  order  that  through  your 
mercy  (the  mercy  which  you  have  received) 
they  also  may  obtain  mercy.  Being  at 
last  moved  to  seek  it  by  beholding  the  bless- 


lOn  the 'calling' of  God,  especially  as  it  relates  to 
individuals,  Trench  ("Notes  on  the  Parables")  has  the 
following:  "  xakiiv  (to  call),  like  the  Latin  vocnre,  is  the 
technical  word  for  inviting  to  a  feast.  It  is  also  the 
word  which  St.  Paul  uses  to  express  the  union  of  an 
outward  word-bidding  and  an  inward  Spirit-tlrawing, 
whereby  God  seeks  to  bring  men  into  his  kingdom. 
The  answering  word  in  St.  John  is  iXuviiv,  to  draw.  I 


(John  6:  44  ;  12:  32.)  This  attraction  or  bidding— out- 
ward by  the  word,  inward  by  the  Spirit— is  the  'holy 
calling  (2  Tim.  1:  9),  'calling  of  God' (Rom.  11:29), 
'heavenly  calling'  (Heb.  3:  1),  'high  calling'  (Phil. 
3:  14);— which  last  is  not  the  calling  to  a  height,  but 
the  calling/;o)H  a  height ;  not  as  we  have  it,  the  '  high 
calling,'  but  the  '  calling/row  on  high:  "— (F.) 


262 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  XI. 


32  For  God  bath  concluded  them  all  in  unbelief,  that 
be  might  have  mercy  upon  all. 

33  O  the  depth  of  the  riches  both  of  the  wisdom  and 
knowledge  of  God!  how  unsearchable  are  his  judg- 
ments, and  bis  ways  past  iinding  out! 


shut  up  all  unto  disobedience,  that  he  might  have 
mercy  upi  n  all.  < 

33  O  the  depth  lof  the  riches  ^both  of  the  wisdom 
and  the  knowledge  of  God!   how  unsearchable  are 

34  his  judgments,  and  his  ways  past  tracing  out!    For 


1  Or,  of  the  riches  and  the  wisdom,  etc 2  Or,  both  of  wisdom,  etc. 


ings  which  it  brings  to  you,  according  to  what 
is  said  in  ver.  14.'  There  is  an  analogy  be- 
tween the  past  and  present  conduct  of  God 
toward  the  Gentiles,  and  his  present  and 
future  conduct  toward  the  Jews.  The  apostle 
contrasts  the  former  state  of  the  Gentiles 
(disobedience  through  unbelief)  with  their 
present  state  (gracious  salvation  through 
faith),  and  the  present  state  of  the  Jews 
(disobedience  through  unbelief)  with  their 
future  state  (gracious  salvation  through  faith.) 
He  compares  the  past  state  of  the  Gentiles 
with  the  present  state  of  the  Jews,  and  the 
present  state  of  the  Gentiles  with  the  future 
state  of  the  Jews.     (J.  Brown.) 

32.  For  God  hath  concluded— literally, 
shut  up  [together,  as  in  a  prison,  compare  Gal. 
3:  22,  Revised  Version,  "The Scripture  shut  up 
all  things  under  sin."  Instead  of  all  (men),  the 
MSS.  D  E  have  here  all  things,  a  reading  prob- 
ably derived  from  the  text  in  Galatians.  Upon 
all — literally,  the  all ;  the  article  may  refer  to 
Jews  and  Gentiles  collectivel3',  of  whom  men- 
tion has  been  made.]  "  Note  this  prime  saj'- 
ing,  which  condemns  all  the  world  and  man's 
righteousness,  and  alone  exalts  God's  mercy 
to  be  obtained  through  faith."  (Luther.) 
All,  whether  Jews  or  Gentiles,  are  alike  shut 
up  in  disobedience;  all  are  alike  dependent 
on  God's  merc3'.  God's  gracious  act  is  as 
universal  in  its  design  and  adaptation  as 
man's  sin.  Whether  or  not  men  will  accept 
it,  this  is  a  question  oi  fact ;  see  1  Tim.  2:  4; 
2  Peter  3  :  9  ;  1  John  2 :  2.  [Paul,  in  Gal.  3 : 
22,  shows  that  those  who  are  thus  shut  up 
unto  disobedience  and  under  sin,  will  never 
experience  the  benefit  of  God's  mercy,  and 
will,  consequently,  ever  remain  in  prison  and 
in  bondage,  unless  they  become  believers  in 
Christ.  "  Tliis  contingency  (whether  men 
will  accept  God's  mercy  or  not)  is  not  here  in 
view,  but  simply  God's  act  itself."    (Alford.) 


"The  universal  restoration  (d7ro(caTa<7Ta<ns)  is 
not  to  be  based  on  our  passage."  (Meyer.) 
We  are  only  taught  that  the  time  is  coming 
on  the  earth  when  God's  mercy  shall  reach 
all  nations  and  classes  of  men,  when  Jew  and 
Gentile,  the  elder  and  the  younger  brother, 
will  once  more  be  gathered  together  in  their 
Father's  house,  and  when  mankind  in  gen- 
eral will  receive  the  salvation  of  God.  "The 
apostle  had  begun  this  vast  exposition  of  sal- 
vation with  the  fact  of  universal  condemnation; 
he  closes  it  with  that  of  universal  mercy.  What 
could  remain  to  him  thereafter  but  to  strike 
the  hymn  of  adoration  and  praise?"  (Go- 
det. )]  In  view  of  the  unsearchable  wisdom 
of  God  displa3'ed  in  all  his  dealings  with  both 
Jew  and  Gentile,  the  apostle  breaks  out  into 
an  admiring  apostrophe,  and  so  closes  the 
argumentative  part  of  tlie  Epistle. 

33.  O  the  depth  of  the  riches!  ['In- 
exhaustible fullness."  Bengel  remarks  that 
"Paul,  in  chapter  9,  had  been  sailing,  as  it 
were,  on  a  strait ;  heis  nowon  theocean."]  As 
the  words  riches,  wisdom,  and  knowledge 
are  all  in  the  same  case,  we  may  regard  them 
as  all  co-ordinate  and  alUce  dependent  on  the 
word  depth — 'depth'  of  riches,  'depth'  of 
wisdom,  etc.  ;  or,  as  our  translators  have 
done,  make  only  the  first  of  the  three, '  riches,' 
directly  depend  on  the  word  'depth,'  and  the 
other  two  dependent  on  'riches.'  The  differ- 
ence in  sense  is  unimportant,  but  the  latter 
way  of  connecting  the  words  is  preferable, 
since  the  word  'riches,'  when  applied  in  a 
figurative  sense  to  God,  seems  rather  to  de- 
mand, and  commonly  to  have  some  defining 
adjunct — as,  riches  of  his  goodness  (2:4),  of 

his   glory  (9:23;  Epb.  3:16),   of  his    graCC  (Ki.li.l:7: 

2:7),  etc.  The  word  translated  unsearchable 
is  used  only  here,  though  the  same  English 
word  is  used  in  Eph.  3 :  8  to  translate  the 
word  here  rendered  past  finding  out.     The 


1  In  the  beginning  of  the  verse,  the  (cai  (also)  of  our 
Common  text  denotes  that  the  Gentiles,  as  well  as  the 
Jews,  had  their  period  of  rebellion.  It  is,  however, 
omitted  by  the  Revisers.  On  the  use  of  a  particle  de- 
noting present  time  with  the  aorist  or  past  tense  (were 
now  compassionated  or  shown  mercy),  see  notes  on  7 :  6. 


'Their  disobedience'  served,  of  course,  merely  as  an 
'  occasion  '  of  the  Gentiles  obtaining  mercy.  The  posi- 
tion of '  your  mercy  '  before  "i-va.  (in  order  that)  is  some* 
what  singular,  yet  is  probably  for  the  sake  of  emphasis 
-(F.) 


Ch.  XI.] 


ROMANS. 


263 


34  For  who  bath  known  the  miud  of  the  Lord?  or 
who  hath  l)t'eti  liis  counsellor? 

35  Or  who  hath  first  given  to  him,  and  it  shall  be 
recompensed  unto  him  again? 

36  For  of  him,  and  through  him,  and  to  him,  are  all 
things:  to  whom  be  glory  for  ever.    Amen. 


who  hath  known  the  mind  of  the  Lord?  or  who 

35  haih  been  bis  counsellor?  or  who  bath  first  given  to 
him,  and  it  shall  be  recompensed  unto  him  again  .' 

36  For  of  him,  and  through  him,  and  unto  hiiu,  are  all 
things.     To  him  be  the  glory  '  lor  ever.    Amen. 


I  Gr.  unto  the  ages. 


original  adjectives  are  in  both  cases  eminently 
approjiriate  to  the  nouns  which  they  qualify. 
His  judgments — that  is,  his  decrees  or  pur- 
poses [especially  his  "hardening  judgments" 
(Phiiippi)]  are  'unsearchable,'  or  inscrutable, 
and  his  ways,  or  methods  of  procedure,  are 
'past  finding  (or,  tracing)  out,'  but  infinitely 
easy  for  God  to  reveal  them  when  he  sees  fit. 
[The  judgments  and  the  ways  of  God  are 
indeed  a  "vasty  deep,"  and  even  when  re- 
vealed cannot  be  fully  comprehended  by  our 
finite  minds.  But  while  they  are  declared  to 
be  thus  unsearchable,  it  may  be  well  to  recol- 
lect that  Paul  speaks  of  other  things  which 
are  likewise  past  uur  comprehension — namely, 
God's  "unspeakable  gift"  of  a  Saviour,  "the 
unsearchableriches  of  Christ,"  and  "the  peace 
of  God  which  passeth  all  understanding."  See 
2  Cor.  9:  15;  Eph.  3:8;  Phil.  4:  7.] 

34.  These  questions  are  quoted  from  Isa. 
40: 13,  14.  Compare  also  1  Cor.  2: 16  [where 
the  former  clause  is  again  quoted.  A  similar 
thought  is  also  expressed  in  Wisdom  of  Solo- 
mon 9  :  13J.  The  first  question  may  have 
special  reference  to. God's  knowledge,  and  the 
second  to  his  wisdom  ;  and  so  this  verse  con- 
firms so  much  of  the  preceding,  the  interro- 
gations being  equivalent,  as  often,  to  a  strong 
afi&rmation  that  no  07ie  has  known  his  mind 
or  has  become  his  counselor;  hence  the  intro- 
ductory for.  ["Many  talk,"  says  Bengel,"as 
if  they  were  not  only  the  Lord's  counselors, 
but  also  his  inquisitors,  his  patrons,  or  his 
judges.  Scripture  everywhere  rests  in  this — 
that  the  Lord  hath  willed,  and  said,  and  done. 
It  does  not  unfold  the  reasons  of  things,  gen- 
eral or  special.  Respecting  things  too  high 
for   our   infant   conceptions,  it   refers   us  to 

eternity.       (l  Cor.  l.l  :  9,  seq.)"] 

35.  This  is  a  manifest  reference  to  Job  41  : 
11  ["according  to  the  Hebrew  («:3),  not  ac- 
cording to  the  LXX.,  whose  translation  is 
quite  erroneous"  (Meyer)].  Who  hath  first 
given  to  him?  Who  hath  anticipated  him, 
been  beforehand  with  him  in  giving,  so  as  to 
be  entitled  to  any  recompense?  So  as  to  place 
him  under  any  obligation?    Thus  these  three 


questions  (ver. .14,35)  fitly  correspond  to  the  three 
attributes  mentioned  in  ver.  83:  Who  hath' 
been  his  counsellor? — to  wisdo'in.  Who 
hath  known? — to  knowledge.  Who  hath 
given ? — to  riches.  ["This  verse  specifiesthe 
depth  of  the  riches  of  God."     (Bengel.)] 

36.  For  of  him.  [The  thought  is:  No 
one  has  done  or  can  do  this,  'for,'  etc.]  All 
things  are  'of  him'  (or,  frotn  him.)  in  their 
origin;  through  him,  as  to  their  subsistence 
and  disposal;  and  to  him  (or,  for  him)  as 
their  end.  "  God  is  the  basis  of  all  that  exists ; 
for  from  him  all  took  its  rise.  God  is  the 
means  of  all  that  exists ;  for  he  directs  all  that 
exists  to  its  destination.  God  is  the  end  of  all 
that  exists;  for  in  him  alone  all  the  creatures 
rest.  It  is  from  God  that  man  derives  his 
being;  to  God  must  he  return  if  he  would 
truly  be;  through  God  must  he  be  led  to 
God  ;  and  thus  God's  mercy  is  the  beginning, 
the  middle,  and  the  end."  (Tholuck.)  [Com- 
pare Col.  1  :  16,  where  Paul  affirms  that  all 
things  were  created  in  Christ, — as  the  causal 
element  of  their  existence  (Ellicott), — all 
things  were  created  through  him,  and  all 
things  were  created  for  him.  If  the  Son  had 
not  been  God,  such  an  interchange  of  im- 
portant relations,  as  Ellicott  well  remarks, 
would  never  had  seemed  possible.  In  the 
doxology,  we  supply  after  glory  some  form 
of  the  verb  to  be.  Perhaps  the  Greek  form 
which  is  used  in  expressing  a  wish  (here,  ryiay 
there  be)  is  most  appropriate  in  this  connec- 
tion.] 

The  close  of  this  verse  reminds  us  of  a  saying 
of  the  Emperor  Marcus  Antoninus;  but  how 
much  more  sublime  as  well  as  more  true  is  the 
apostle's  doxology  than  the  Stoic's  apostrophe 
to  nature:  "All  is  froin  thee;  all  is  in  thee; 
all  is  for  thee."  To  God,  and  not  to  nature 
[and  'not  unto  us'],  be  glory  for  ever,  ?ot^o</ie 
ages.  Amen.  Thus  the  apostle  devoutly  closes 
the  chapter  and  the  formal  argument  of  this 
Epistle.  [And  what  but  the  strongest  mental 
powers,  enlightened  and  sustained  by  the 
Holy  Spirit,  could  have  kept  the  apostle's 
thought  throughout   all   these  chapters   and 


264 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  XII. 


CHAPTEK  XII. 


I 


BESEECH  you  therefore,  brethren,  by  the  mercies  of  I 
God,  that  ye  present  your  bodies  a  living  sacrifice,  | 


1      I  beseech  you  therefore,  brethren,  by  the  mercies 
of  God,  to  present  your  bodies  a  living  sacrifice,  holy, 


verses — without  the  least  sign  of  breaking 
down,  sinking,  or  weakening — up  to  the  lofty 
"height  of  this  great  argument !  "  '] 


III.  Practical.  (Ch.  12-15:  13.) 
Ch.  12 :  [Exhortations  touching  the  more 
private  and  general  duties  of  Christians. 
"The  chapter  stands  unrivalled  as  a  spon- 
taneous sketch  of  the  fairest  graces  which  can 
adorn  the  Christian  life."  (Farrar. )  The 
subject  of  the  following  chapters  is  the  ''''Life 
of  the  justified  believer."  It  was  no  come 
down  for  the  apostle  to  break  off  from  the 
high  arguing  of  a  didactic  treatise,  and  to 
inculcate  the  common  duties  which  flow  from 
the  Christian  faith,  and  which  become  the 
Christian  life.*  The  apostle,  as  Godet  ob- 
serves, commencing  this  section  with  Christian 
consecration,  then  speaks  of  the  Christian  life 
in  its  two  spheres  of  activity,  treating  in  this 
chapter  of  the  religious  sphere,  and  in  the 
next,  of  the  civil  spliere.  Renan  supposes 
that  this  and  the  two  following  chapters, 
though  written  by  Paul,  did  not  originally 
form  a  part  of  the  genuine  Epistle  to  the 
Romans;  but  his  arguments  or  fancies  are 
well  answered  by  Godet.] 

It  is  customary  with  Paul  to  close  his  epis- 
tles with  a  series  of  practical  exhortations, 
not  always  very  closely  connected  with  the 
preceding   doctrinal    discussion,   but  always 


very  pertinent  to  the  circumstances  of  those 
to  whom  the  epistle  is  addressed. 

1.  [I  beseech,  or,  exhort^  with  the  related 
idea  of  comforting  or  encouraging.  Compare 
Eph.  4:  1;  IThess.  4:  1.  "  Moses  commands, 
the  apostle  exhorts."  (Bengel.)  This  word 
is  used  above  fifty  times  in  Paul's  epistles.] 
The  word  therefore  connects  the  exhortation 
to  entire  consecration  to  God  with  the  pre- 
ceding course  of  thought,  not  merely  in  the 
closing  verses  of  the  preceding  chapter,  nor 
even  in  that  chapter  as  a  whole,  but  in  the 
entire  doctrinal  discussion  of  the  foregoing 
chapters.  By  (through)  the  mercies  of  God 
— in  view  of,  and  as  a  consequence  of  those 
divine  mercies  which  have  been  so  fully  set 
forth  in  the  body  of  the  Epistle.  [The  tender 
— literally,  wailing — compassions  of  God  are 
here  presented  as  a  motive  (6i<i)  to  thankful 
obedience  and  entire  consecration.  Cannot 
the  same  appeal  be  made  to  our  grateful  feel- 
ings in  view  of  God's  compassionate  mercies 
by  us  so  constantly  experienced  ?  Note  how 
Paul,  after  writing  of  God's  "wrath,"  and 
of  his  "hardening"  sinners,  and  giving  them 
the  spirit  of  stupor,  can  yet  speak  so  freely 
and  unhesitatingly  of  the  mercies  of  God. 
Compare  2  Cor.  1:  3,  where  God  is  called 
"the  Father  of  mercies."]  That  ye  present 
your  bodies.  Your  entire  selves  [present  at 
once,  and  once  for  all  (aorist  tense),  'your 
bodies,'  in  this  verse,   'your  minds,'   in   the 


1  In  connection  with  this  chapter,  we  would  call 
attention  to  the  remarkable  religious  movement  which 
is  now  going  on  among  the  Jews  in  South  Russia,  under 
the  leadership  of  Joseph  Rabinowitz,  a  lawyer  by  pro- 
fession, hut  now  a  baptized  Christian  believer.  After 
visiting  Jerusalem,  and  witnessing  the  desolation  of 
Zion  and  the  sad  state  of  his  own  people,  the  last 
chapter  of  the  Hebrew  Bible  (2  Chron.  .36 :  14-16)  came 
forcibly  to  his  mind,  and  he  was  led  to  ask  :  "  Can  there 
he  no  '  remedy '  7  "  This  remedy  he  soon  found  in  the 
gospel  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  the  Son  of  God,  and  this 
gospel  he  is  now  proclaiming  to  his  "  kinsmen  accrirding 
to  the  flesh."  He  proposes  to  organize  a  new  sect,  to  be 
called  Israelites  of  the  New  Covenant,  and  many  Jews 
have  already  expressed  a  desire  to  join  this  Christian 
brot  herhood.  In  a  recent  communication,  he  says :  "  By 
the  help  of  God  I  placed  the  blessing,  the  New  Testa- 
ment, in  many  Jewish  houses,  and  thousands  of  Israel- 
ites trust  for  salvation  in  the  blessed  blood  of  the  Lord 


Jesus  Christ,  who  was  crucified  outside  the  gate  of 
Jerusalem,  to  make  an  end  of  sin  and  to  bring  in  ever- 
lasting righteousness."  We  may  remark  that  the  He- 
brew translation  of  the  New  Testament,  by  Delitzsch,  is 
having  a  wonderful  sale,  and  is  exerting  a  remarkable 
influence  among  the  Jews  in  Eastern  Russia,  and  even 
in  far-distant  Siberia.— (F.) 

2 "No  one  felt  more  deeply  than  Paul  that  it  requires 
great  principles  to  secure  our  faithfulness  in  little 
duties,  and  that  every  duty,  however  apparently  insig- 
nificant, acquires  a  real  grandeur  when  it  is  regarded 
in  the  light  of  those  principles  from  which  its  fulfill- 
ment springs."  (Farrar.)  "Holy  George  Herbert," 
speaking,  in  his  "  Elixir,"  of  doing  all  unto  God,  and 
for  his  sake,  says: 

"A  servant  with  this  clause 

Makes  drudgery  divine; 
Who  sweeps  a  room  as  for  thy  laws 

Makes  that  and  the  action  fine." — (F.) 


Ch.  XII.] 


ROMANS. 


265 


holy_,  acceptable  unto  God,  which  is  your  reasonable 
service. 
2  Aud  be  not  conformed  to  this  world :  but  be  ye 


1  acceptable  to  God,  which  is  your  2  spiritual  3 service. 
2  And  be  not  fashioned  according  to  this  <  world  :  but 


1  Gr.  well-pleasing 2  Gr.  belonging  to  the  reaaon 3  Or,  worship 4  Or,  age. 


next  (Meyer) — thus,  a  whole  burnt  offering, 
to  be  wholly  consumed  for  God  on  his  altar. 
The  term  'bodies'  may  be  taken  in  a  literal 
sense,  since  their  presentation  to  God  may  be 
a  service  of  the  mind,  a  rational  service. 
Some  think  the  word  was  chosen  as  having 
reference  to  the  metaphor  of  sacrifice,  and  to 
the  body  regarded  as  the  seat  of  sin.  01s- 
hausen  thinks  the  word  '  bodies  '  is  used  here 
to  indicate  that  sanctification  should  extend 
to  the  lowest  power  of  human  nature  ]  A 
living  sacrifice — not  only  in  distinction  from 
the  sacrifice  of  dead  bodies,  whicli  the  law  for- 
bade, and  of  slain  bodies,  whicli  the  law 
required,  but  in  the  sense  of  a  perpetual  sac- 
rifice to  be  continually  renewed.  Holy.  The 
Levitical  sacrifices  were  required  to  be  with- 
out natural  or  physical  blemish  ;  here,  of 
course,  the  reference  is  to  moral  purity.' 
Acceptable  unto  God.  God  requires  of  us 
now  no  sacrifice  of  slain  boasts;  but  the  unre- 
served consecration  of  our  persons  to  him  in 
holy  living  is  acceptable,  well  pleasing  to 
him.  [This  term  is  frequently  used  hy  Paul, 
and  except  in  Titus  2:  9,  always  in  relation  to 
God  or  to  Christ.  Compare  1  Peter  2:  5, 
"spiritual  sacrifices  acceptable  to  God."] 
Your  reasonable  service.  The  consecra- 
tion of  our  bodies  to  God  is  an  act  of  our 
minds;  it  is  a  rational  (AoyiKos),  or  spiritual 
service.  It  is  to  be  performed  in  a  waj'  suitable 
to  the  nature  of  man  as  a  rational  being,  suit- 
able to  the  nature  of  God  as  a  spiritual  being.s 
The  word  here  translated  'service,'  always 
refers  to  sacred  or  religious,  never  to  merely 
common  or  secular  service.  It  corresponds 
to  our  word  service  when  the  adjective  divine 
is  prefixed  to  it. 
2.  And  be  not  conformed  to  this  world. 


[This,  and  the  following  verb,  should  probably 
be  put  in  the  infinitive  in  the  same  regimen  as 
'present.'  This  verb  occurs  also  in  1  Peter 
1:  14.  In  the  use  of  this  verb,  Dr.  Schatf 
sees  a  special  adaptation  to  the  changing  and 
transitory /rtsAioM  of  this  world.  Com))are  1 
Cor.  7:  31.  "The  fashion  (<Tx^iiia)  of  this  world 
passeth  away."  See,  also,  the  rendering  of 
the  Revised  Version,  "be  not  fashioned."] 
By  this  world  we  understand  the  whole 
world  of  the  ungodly  as  contrasted  with  the 
disciples  of  Christ.  ['This  world,'  oragefaliv), 
is  commonly  defined  as  the  temporary  order 
of  things  in  which  sin  predominates,  to  which 
the  "age  to  come,"  the  kingdom  of  God,  or 
the  holy  state  of  things  founded  by  Christ,  is 
the  exact  contrast.  In  accordance  with  Scrip- 
ture teaching,  ages  have  already  transpired, 
and  in  view  of  what  is  past,  Paul  speaks  of 
living  in  "the  ends  of  the  ages.''  (icor. io:u.) 
But  he  also  speaks  of  "ages  which  are  com- 
ing" (Eph.2:7);  and  " such  expressions,"  says 
EUicott,  "deserve  especial  notice,  as  they 
incidentally  prove  how  very  ill  founded  is  the 
popular  opinion  adopted  by  Me\'er  and  others, 
that  St.  Paul  believed  the  Advent  of  the  Lord 
to  be  close  at  hand."]  We  are  to  avoid  worldly 
conformity,  not  by  any  oddity  of  dress  or 
manners,  but  by  an  inward  transformation 
resulting  in  a  knowledge,  approval,  and  prac- 
tice of  that  which  God  wills.  We  have  in 
this  verse  an  evil  to  be  avoided,  a  remedy 
to  be  applied,  and  the  happy  results  of 
applying  it.  [Would  that  Christians  and 
churches  in  this  age  of  worldly  conformity 
might  heed  this  warning  voice  of  the  apostle, 
and  thus  be  saved  from  an  "evil"  which,  per- 
haps more  than  any  other,  is  eating  out  their 
spiritual  life  and  power,  and  which  thus  mars 


'This  term,  a-yio«,  holy  (occurring  in  the  classics, 
while  its  many  New  Testament  derivatives  are  un- 
known), "is  the  rarest  of  five  synonyms, — iepds,  oo-ios, 
cfiJ.i'6':,  ayv6<;, — whicli  the  Greeks  had  to  express  the 
idea  of  holiness,  so  far,  at  least,  as  they  knew  such  an 
idea.  In  Biblical  Greek  ...  it  is  the  only  word  by 
■which  the  bihiical  conception  of  holiness  is  expressed, 
.  .  .  whereas  the  most  frequently  occurring  word  in 
classical  Greek,  Upos,  is  almost  completely  excluded 
from  Scripture  use."    (Cremer.) — (F.) 

2  Compare  1  Peter  2:  2,  where  he  speaks  of  AoytKos, 


rational,  or  spiritual  milk,  "milk  which  nourishes  the 
soul."  (Grimm.)  Clement  of  Ale.\andria  speaks  of 
logical  medicines  (medicines  for  the  mind),  logical 
food,  logical  water,  logical  baptism.  "  AoyiKo?,  pertain- 
ing to,  and  ajjproved  by,  the  reason."  (Boise.)  Prof. 
Cremer  thinks  it  implies  reasonable  meditation  or 
reflection  in  contrast  with  outward,  thoughtless  cere- 
mony. This  'rational  worship'  is  grammatically  in 
apposition  to  the  sentence,  'present  your  bodies,' 
etc.— (F.) 


266 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  XII. 


transformed  by  the  renewing  of  your  mind,  that  ye  may 
prove  what  is  that  good,  and  acceptable,  and  perfect  will 
of  God. 

3  For  I  say,  through  the  grace  given  unto  me,  to 
every  man  that  is  among  you,  not  to  think  of  himselj' 
more  highly  than  he  ought  to  think;  but  to  think 
soberly,  according  as  Uod  hath  dealt  to  every  man  the 
measure  of  faith. 


be  ye  transformed  by  the  renewing  of  your  mind, 
that  ye  may  prove  what  is  i  the  good  and"-  acceptable 
and  perfect  will  of  dod. 

3  For  I  say,  through  the  grace  that  was  given  me^  to 
every  man  that  is  among  you,  not  to  think  of  him- 
self more  highly  than  he  ought  to  think  ;  but  so  to 
think   as  to  think  soberly,  according  as  God  hath 

4  dealt  to  each  man  a  measure  of  faith.    For  even  as 


1  Or,  the  will  of  God,  even  the  thing  which  is  good  and  acceptable  and  perfect 2  Gr.  well-pleasing. 


their  influence  for  good,  making  them  ioap2^ear 
so  unlike  the  followers  of  the  meek  and  lowly 
Saviour.  Would  that  Christian  men  might  lay 
aside  all  pernicious  habits  and  wordly  ostenta- 
tion, and  that  Christian  women  might  hang 
a  portion  of  their  jewelry  and  needless  orna- 
ment on  the  Saviour's  rugged,  bleeding  cross. 
This  "vain  glory  of  life"  is  unbecoming  to  a 
Christian,  is,  in  many  respects,  pernicious  in 
its  influence,  and  must  be  offensive  in  the  sight 
of  our  Heavenly  Father.  The  apostle,  in  his 
earnestness,  could  not  be  content  with  a  merely 
negative  command,  and  hence  he  adds,  be  ye 
transformed — literally,  metamorphosed.,  a 
term  used  of  Christ's  transfiguration.  See, 
also,  2  Cor.  3:  18.]  This  does  not  imply  that 
the  persons  addressed  were  as  yet  unregenerate, 
but  only  that  their  inward  renewal,  which  had 
been  distinctly  professed  in  their  baptism,  was 
to  be  progressive,  and  to  manifest  its  reality 
and  power  by  a  growing   conformity  to  the 


to  confirm  the  general  exhortation  of  ver.  2, 
by  a  special  requirement.  (Meyer.)  I  say, 
through  the  grace  given  unto  me,  as  an 

apostle  to  exhort  and  guide  the  church.  [I 
exhort  j'ou,  not  in  my  own  name  or  by  mine 
own  authority  (the  apostle  himself  thus  set- 
ting an  example  of  humility),  but  in  virtue 
of,  or  by  means  of,  the  grace  which  was 
bestowed  upon  me.]  To  every  man  that  is 
among  you— a  strong  statement  of  the  indi- 
vidual application  of  the  admonition.  [This 
would  have  applied  to  Peter  himself  had  he 
been  in  Rome,  but  had  this  been  so,  Paul  would 
nothave  thus  written,  or  indeed  would  not  have 
written  at  all.  (Lange. )  It  would  do  no 
harm,  however,  if  the  church  dignitaries  now 
at  Rome  should  heed  this  message  of  the 
apostle.]  To  think  soberly.  There  is  dan- 
ger of  our  being  puflfed  up  with  pride  on 
account  of  God's  gifts,  whether  ordinary  or 
extraordinary.     [There  is  a  play  upon  words 


will  of  God.     [This  transformation,  equivalent  |  here  in  the  original,  which   is  thus  brought 
to  Christ's  being  formed  in  us  (Gai.4:i9),  he  j  out  by  Alford:  "Not  to  be  high  minded  above 


tells  them  is  secured  through  the  renewing  of 
your  mind,  which,  as  impaired  and  darkened 
by  sin,  has  become  a  reprobate  (or  "  unap- 
proved) mind"  (i:  '•'s),  or,  "mind  of  the  flesh." 
(coi.2:i8.)  This  renewing  is  eflected  by  the 
Holy  Spirit  (Eph.4:  23;  xituaS:  5);  and  here  again 
we  have  divine  activity  and  huitian  dependence 
and  co-operation  brought  to  view.  The  three 
adjectives,  the  first  of  which  alone  has  the 
article  on  account  of  the  general  unity  of  their 
meaning,  are  to  be  used  substantively  (as  in 
the  margin  of  the  Revised  Version)  unless  we 
would  assert  the  truism  that  God  is  well  pleased 
with  his  own  will.] 

3.  After  the  exhortation  to  entire  consecra- 
tion to  God,  the  apostle  enjoins  the  cultiva- 
tion of  particular  graces  and  the  practice  of 
particular  duties,  beginning  with  humility 
[as,  perhaps,  the  most  important].     For  serves 


what  he  ought  to  be  minded,  but  to  be  so 
minded  as  to  be  sober  minded."  This  last 
term  is  specially  employed  by  the  Greeks  to 
denote  self-regulation  or  self-control.^]  Ac- 
cording as  God  hath  dealt  to  every  man 
the  measure  of  faith.  God  has  distributed 
hisgiftsand  gracesin  diff"erent  measure, accord- 
ing to  his  own  wisdom.  It  belongs  to  Chris- 
tian wisdom  and  humility  to  estimate  our- 
selves accordingly,  neither  disparaging  his 
gifts  and  our  consequent  responsibilities,  nor 
overestimatinff  them  in  our  self-conceit. 
["The  emphatic  position  of  each  one  ('every 
man')  (placed  in  the  original  before  the  as) 
gives  prominence  to  the  idea  of  diversity  be- 
tween one  man  and  another."  (i  cor.  3:  5;  7 :  17.) 
("Biblical  Commentarj'.")  We  may  describe 
faith  as  being  the  subjective  principle  of  Chris- 
tian endeavor,  as  divine  grace  is  the  objective. 


1  The  word  Trapa  translated  above,  "  means  beside  the 
mark  or  aim,  and  consequently  (as  the  context  may 
determine)  sometimes  above,  as  here,  and  sometimes 
below,  as  2  Cor.  11 :  24."    (Winer.)    Aet  (it  is  jii)  denotes 


necessity,  and,  as  used  here,  moral  obligation;  (jtpoveiii, 
to  feel  or  regard  in  mind,  is  often  used  by  Paul,  especially 
in  his  later  letters.  The  same  injunction  is  repeated 
substantially  in  ver.  16, '  mind  not  high  things.'— (F.) 


Ch.  XIL] 


ROMANS. 


267 


4  For  as  we  have  many  members  in  one  body,  and  all 
memlier.s  have  not  the  same  office: 

5  So  we,  hfin;/  many,  are  one  body  in  Christ,  and 
every  one  members  one  of  another. 

(>  Having  then  gifts  ditfering  according  to  the  grace 
that  is  given  to  us,  wliether  i)ronhecy,  Itt  us  prujihesi/ 
according  to  the  proportion  of  faitli ; 


we  have  many  members  in  one  body,  and  all  the 

5  members  have  not  the  same  office:  so  we,  who  are 
many,  are  one  body  in  Christ,  and  severally  u)em- 

6  bers  one  of  auoiher.  And  having  gifts  ditfering 
according  to  the  grace  that  was  given  to  us,  wheth^;r 
prophecy,  let  us  jirujj/ii  sy  according  to  the  proi)ortioa 

7  of  our  faith;  or  ministry, /e<  us  give  ourseUes  to  oUp 


This  measure  of  faith  which  each  one  has  is  a 
gift  of  grace,     (ver.e.)] 

4,5.  [For  "elucidates  the  fact  that  God 
apportions  variously  to  various  persons,  be- 
cause the  Christian  community  is  like  a  body 
with  many  members  having  various  duties'" 
(Alford),  thus  furnishing  a  motive  for  giving 
liced  to  the  exhortation.  If  all  the  members 
of  Christ's  body  have  not  the  same  function 
or  office,  yet  each  one,  the  obscurest  as  well 
as  the  most  prominent,  has  a  work  to  do,  and 
ttie  humblest  member,  if  faithful  even  in 
little  things,  will  in  no  wise  lose  his  reward. 
Members  one  of  anotlicr.  We  are  such 
only  as  we  are  members  of  the  body  of  Christ, 
he  being  "the  common  element  in  which  the 
union  consists."  ^]  See  the  same  figure  of  the 
Cliristian  community  as  one  body  developed 
still  more  fully  by  the  apostle  in  1  Cor.  12 :  12- 
27  ;  compare  also  Eph.  4 :  11-16.  It  is  a  beau- 
tiful spectacle  when  a  Christian  church  sets 
itself  earnestly  to  realize  this  apostolic  idea. 
Many  a  church  now  reputed  feeble,  and  re- 
garding itself  so,  would  be  surprised  to  find 
how  strong  it  is,  if  it  should  truly  grasp  and 
carry  out  this  idea.  [Of  the  aphorism  :  "Di- 
versity without  unity  is  disorder,  unity  without 
diversity  is  death,"  the  fcjrmer  member  is  most 
certainly  true.  Could  the  members  of  our 
churches,  while  each  should  be  doing  his  own 
special  work,  yet  feel  and  act  as  a  band  of 
loving,  sympathizing  brethren,  thinking  less 
of  ourselves  and  more  of  our  fellow  members 
(Phil.  2: 3,*),  more  of  Christ  and  his  suftering 
cause,  and  willing  to  sacrifice  for  the  sake  of 
that  cause,  not  only  of  our  wealth  or  of  our 
poverty,  but,  perchance,  a  little  of  our  self- 
importance,  self-will,  and  obstinacy  (wherein 
we  have  to  strive  so  hard  to  be  conscientious), 
there  would  be  left,  as  a  source  of  weakness 
and  reproach,  but  little  of  variance,  dishar- 
mony, and  strife.  The  Church  of  Christ  would 
be  a  mighty  power  if  her  enemies  could  say 


now  as  they  did  in  earliest  times:  "Behold 
how  these  Christians  love  one  another!  "] 

6-8.   Having   then   gifts   ditfering   ac- 
cording to  the  grace  that  is  given  to  us, 

etc.  This  is  a  rich  and  beautiful  passage,  s<jme- 
what  elliptical,  requiring  supplementary  words 
of  the  translators,  and  irregular  in  its  gram- 
matical construction,  yet  not  obscure.  [A  few 
expositors,  without  supplying  ditferent  verbs, 
render  somewhat  as  follows :  we  are  one  body, 
etc.,  while  having  differing  gifts,  Oiaving) 
prophecy,  (having)  ministry',  etc.  But  this  ren- 
dering ignores  the  disjunctive  particle  at  the  be- 
ginning of  ver.  6,  and  also  the  fact  that  many  of 
the  following  terms,  such  as  siniplicity,  dili- 
gence, cheerfulness,  denote  neither  the  mea- 
sure in  which  the  gracious  gift  is  given,  nor  the 
sphere  in  which  it  is  exercised,  but  the  way 
and  manner  in  which  it  should  be  exercised. 
(Philippi.)  Godet  supplies  but  one  brief  sen- 
tence at  the  beginning,  as  follows:  'Having 
then  gifts  ^  ...  let  us  exercise  them,  etc. 
Whether  prophecy— not  here  the  foretelling 
of  future  events,  but  "an  immediate  occasional 
insj)iration,  leading  the  recipient  to  deliver,  as 
the  mouth  of  God,  the  ])articular  communica- 
tion which  he  had  received,  whether  de- 
signed for  instruction,  exhortation,  or  comfort." 
(Hodge.)  The  gift  as  thus  defined  would  seem 
specially  to  belong  to  the  age  of  the  apostles. 
On  the  extraordinary  gifts  of  that  age,  see 
1  Cor.  12:  4-10.  According  to  the  propor- 
tion of  faith  ;  or,  measure  of  (our)  faith  ; 
see  ver.  3,  and  the  Kevised  Version.  '  Faith ' 
here  is  rightly  regarded  as  subjective,  equiva- 
lent to  personal  confidence  in  God  or  trust  in 
Christ;  not  'faith,'  referring  to  doctrine.  Thus 
there  is  no  reference  here  to  what  is  called  the 
"analogy  of  faith,"  although  Wordsworth, 
Philippi,  and  Hodge  contend  for  this  view.] 
For  one  to  speak  in  the  proportion  of  faith  is 
to  speak  in  his  proi)hecy  only  what  God  re- 
veals to  his  faith,  without  adding  any  of  his 


1  On  the  force  of  the  neuter  article  to  in  the  Revision 
text,  see  at  9:  5.  The  preposition  koto,  which  should 
properly  be  followed   by   the   accusative,  serves  here 


14:  19;  John  8:  9;  Rev.  21:  21.  The  phrase  regarded 
as  a  noun  in  the  "  accusative  of  specification  "  is  thus 
rendered  by  Meyer;  "Hut  in   what  concerns  the  indi- 


merely  as  au  adverb.    For  similar  examples,  see  Mark  |  vidual  relation  "  (we  are  membei-s  one  of  another).— (F.) 


268 


ROMANS. 


[Cii.  XII. 


7  Or  ministry,  lei  us  wail  on  our  ministering;  or  he 
that  teacbeth,  on  teaching; 

«  f)r  he  that  exhorteth,  on  exhortation:  he  that  giv- 
eth,  If/  him  do  it  with  simplicity  ;  he  that  ruleth,  with 
diligence  ;  he  that  sheweth  mercy,  with  cheerfulness. 

9  Lfl  love  be  without  dissimulation.  Abhor  that 
which  is  evil ;  cleave  to  that  which  is  good. 

lu  Be  kindly  alf'ectioned  one  to  another  with  brotherly 
Jove  ;  in  honour  preferring  one  another  ; 


8  ministry ;  or  he  that  teacheth,  to  his  teaching  ;  or  he 
that  e.xhorteth,  to  his  exhorting:  he  that  giveth,  let 
him  do  il  with  i  liberality  ;  he  that  ruleth,  with  dili- 
gence ;   he  that  sheweth   mercy,  with  cheerfulness. 

9  Let  love  be  without  hypocrisy.     Abhor  that  which  is 

10  evil ;  cleave  to  that  which  is  good.  In  love  of  the 
brethren  be  tenderly  aflectioned  one  to  another;  in 

11  honour    preferring  one  another;    in   diligence  not 


1  Gr.  singleness. 


own  inferences  or  conjectures.  The  word  for 
ministering,  or,  serving,  is  the  same  which 
gives  name  to  the  deacon's  office  in  Phil.  1:1; 
1  Tim.  3:  8,  12;  compare  also  1  Cor.  12:  5; 
Eph.  4:  12;  but  is  probably  used  here  in  a 
more  comprehensive  sense,  to  include  various 
forms  of  service.  [Or  he  that  teacheth,  etc. 
If  Paul  had  not  changed  the  construction  he 
would  have  written,  or  teaching ;  or  exhorta- 
tion; or  giving,  etc.  He,  however,  retains  the 
word  '  whether '  as  if  the  construction  was 
unchanged.  The  original  word  for  exhort  (see 
ver.  1,  where  it  is  translated  "beseech")  "com- 
bines the  ideas  of  exhorting,  and  comforting, 
and  encouraging."  (Grimm.)  It  dift'ers  from 
teaching,  in  that  it  is  rather  directed  to  the 
feelings,  while  the  latter  is  directed  more  to  the 
understanding  of  the  hearers.  (EUicott.)]  He 
that  giveth,  let  him  do  it  with  simplicity. 
This  latter  word  is  the  same  which  is  translated 
liberality  and  bountifulness  in  2  Cor.  8:2; 
9:  11.  [This  word,  rendered  by  Prof.  Boise, 
"frank  liberality"  (used  here  with  reference 
not  to  official  distribution,  but  to  personal  im- 
parting or  giving),  is  found  only  in  Paul's 
writings  (seven  times),  and,  according  to  EUi- 
cott, "marks  that  openness  (an-Aou,  to  spread 
out  so  that  there  are  no  folds)  and  sincerity  of 
heart  which  repudiates  duplicity  in  thought  or 
action."  Alford  prefers  the  idea  of  open- 
handedness  or  liberality ;  compare  also  the  use 
of  the  abverb  in  connection  with  God's  giving, 
James  1 :  5.  He  that  ruleth — he  that  presides 
over  others  in  the  church  (compare  govern- 
ments, 1  Cor.  12 :  28),  and  possibly  in  the  house- 
hold— let  such  a  one  rule  with  diligence,  or 
zeal.  Most  expositors  think  church  overseers 
are  here  referred  to,  though,  as  Alford  says, they 
seem  to  be  brought  in  rather  "low  down  in  the 
list."  Godet  thinks  that  church  officers  have 
been  already  referred  to  under  the  term  minis- 
istry.]    With  cheerfulness.    The  word  used 


here  (iAapoTJjTi)  is  a  particularly  significant  one, 
which  occurs  nowhere  else  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. It  might  be  translated :  with  hilarity. 
The  corresponding  adjective  is  used  only  in 
2  Cor.  9:  7,  where  we  read  that  "God  loveth 
a  cheerful  giver." 

9-21.  ["Exhortations  for  all  without  dis- 
tinction, headed  by  love  J"  (Meyer.)]  Let 
love  be  [the  imperative,  being  understood] 
without  dissimulation,  or,  unfeigned,  as 
the  same  Greek  adjective  is  translated  in  2  Cor. 
6 :  6 ;  1  Tim.  1 :  5 ;  2  Tim.  1 :  5 ;  1  Peter  1 :  22 
("without  hypocrisy"  in  James  3;  17;  com- 
pare 1  John  3 :  18).  It  is  the  part  of  unfeigned 
love  to  others  to  hate  the  evil  that  mars  the 
imperfect  characters  of  those  whom  we  never- 
theless sincerely  love,  and  to  attach  ourselves 
to,  and  encourage  the  good  that  there  is  in 
them.  This  is  loving  them  wisely,  "for  their 
good,  to  edification."  (Rom.i5:2.)  [The  present 
participles  indicate  that  we  should  habitually 
abhor  that  which  is  evil  wherever  or  in 
whomsoever  it  exits,  and  cleave  ('attach' — 
literally,  "glue"  ourselves)  to  that  which  is 
good,  wherever  manifested.^  Here  and  in 
Luke  6 :  45,  the  form  of  the  article  shows  the 
noun  to  be  neuter ;  but  as  used  in  the  Scrip- 
tures with  the  article,  it  generally  has  reference 
to  persons,  and  it  is  mainly  for  this  reason  that 
the  Lord's  prayer  in  the  Kevision  is  made  to 
speak  of  "the  evil  one.^^'\ 

10.  Be  kindly  affectioned  one  to 
another  with  brotherly  love.  The  word 
translated  'kindly  affectioned'  has  for  its  root 
a  word  appropriated  to  designate  that  natural 
aflPection  which  exists  between  blood  relations, 
and  is  here  fitly  employed  to  express  that  spirit- 
ual relationship  which  binds  together  the  chil- 
dren of  the  same  Heavenly  Father  by  a  tie 
stronger  than  that  of  blood  [and  makes  them 
brothers  and  sisters,  one  family  in  Christ.  The 
word  for  'brotherlj^  love'  (4>L\aSe\<t>ia,  occurring 


1  Of  the  two  words  frequently  rendered  '  evil,'  irovripo^,  I  decidedly  out  than  in  (caicds."  A  man  may  be  KaKo^,  evil 
the  one  here  employed,  and  kokos.  Trench  says :  "  In  or  wicked  in  himself,  but  one  who  is  irovrjpos  is  an  evil- 
novripoi  the  positive  activity  of  evil  comes  far  more    worker,  a  corrupter  of  others. — (F.) 


Ch.  XII.] 


ROMANS. 


269 


11  Not  slothful  in  business;  fervent  in  spirit ;  serving  !  12  slothful ;  fervent  in  spirit;  serving  "the  Lord;  re- 
the  Lord  ;                                                                                     I  joicing  in  hope;  patient  in  tribulation;  cotitiuuiug 

12  Itijoicing   in   hope;   patient   in    tribulation;   con- l  13  stedfastly  in   prayer;  coniiuunicatiug  to  tlie  neces- 
tiniiiiig  iM>iant  in  prayer;  14  sities  of  the  saints; -given  to  hospitality.     Ulessthem 

Hi  liistrilmting  to  the  necessity  of  saints;  given  to 
hospitality.  I 

I  Souie  aiicieui  aulboriiie.s  read  the  opportunity 2  dr.  purauing. 


elsewhere  in  1  Thess.  4:9;  Heb.  13  : 1 ;  1  Peter 
1 :  22 ;  2  Peter  1 :  7)  is  placed  first  in  the  Greek, 
as  in  the  Revised  Version,  because  of  emphasis. 
The  same  is  true  of  all  the  leading  nouns  which 
follow  down  to  ver.  14,  and  most  of  them  might 
well  hold  their  prominent  place  in  a  transla- 
tion. Many  of  these  nouns  are  in  the  so-called 
dative  of  reference  or  respect.]  In  honour 
preferring  one  another — or,  more  exactly, 
"preceding  one  another,"  "going  before  one 
another  in  giving  honor,"  and  so  setting  an 
attractive  example.     Compare  Phil.  2:3. 

11.  Not  slothful  in  business.  This  clause 
is  very  commonly  understood  as  enjoining 
diligence  in  secular  affairs ;  but  this  is  not  in 
accordance  with  the  usage  of  the  original  word, 
which  is  translated  'business'  only  in  this  pas- 
sage, usuall}^  "diligence,"  as  in  ver.  8  of  this 
chapter,  and  in  2  Cor.  8:7;  Heb.  6:11;  2  Peter 
1:5;  Jude  3.  Not  slack  in  diligence,  or,  not 
remiss  in  zeal,  would  be  a  fitter  translation. 
The  exhortation  [compare  the  similar  one  in 
Eccl.  9  :  10]  is  in  harmony  with  the  whole  con- 
text, in  which  strictly  religious  duties  are 
enjoined.  The  service  of  the  Lord  should  be 
prosecuted  with  a  sustained  zeal  and  a  spirit 
glowing  with  sacred  fervor.  [Fervent  in 
spirit — in  spirit  be  fervent,  or,  boiling.  Com- 
pare Acts  18  :  2o.  This  is  the  opposite  of  being 
sluggish  in  diligence.'  Serving  the  Lord. 
Instead  of  this,  Me.yer  and  Lange,  with  the 
uncials  D  *  F  G,  read:  Serving  the  time.  It 
would  be  equivalent  to  taking  the  circum- 
stances into  consideration,  regidating  oneself 
by  them.  (Cremer.)  The  principal  letters  in 
the  words  for  Lord  and  tim,e  are  the  same,  so 
that  the  words,  if  abbreviated,  could  be  easilj' 
mistaken.  The  weight  of  manuscript  authority 
and  of  internal  probability  is  in  favor  of  the 
usual  reading.  De  Wette  well  saj-s:  "The 
Christian  should  improve  the  time  and  oppor- 
tunity (tok  (coipdi/),  but  not  serve  it."] 

12.  Rejoicing  in  hope;  patient  in  trib- 
ulation, etc.  In  the  first  clause,  the  adjunct 
expresses  the  ground  of  the  rejoicing  [thus,  in 


virtue  of  hope,  be  joyful] ;  in  the  second,  the 
state  in  which  the  patience  is  to  be  exercised 
[amid  tribulation,  be  steadfast] ;  and  in  the 
third,  the  habit  to  which  the  instancy  or  tire- 
less perseverance  is  to  be  applied  [in  prayer, 
earnestly  persevering].  In  reference  to  this 
last,  compare  Acts  1:14;  2  :  42 ;  6:4;  Col.  4 : 2. 
13.  Distributing^  to  the  necessity  (neces- 
sities) of  saints ;  given  to  hospitality. 
B(jth  these  kindred  duties  were  made  more 
obligatory  by  the  circumstances  of  those  primi- 
tive times  when  Christians  were  so  often  subject 
to  spoliation  of  goods  and  to  persecutions. 
How  well  the  early  disciples  obeyed  this  first 
admonition  we  learn  from  Acts  4  :  34,  35;  11: 
27-30 ;  Rom.  15  :  25-27  ;  2  Cor.  8:1-4;  9:1,2. 
The  nature  of  the  duty  enjoined  in  the  second 
admonition  is  shown,  bj'  the  term  used,  to  be 
something  very  different  from  that  sumptuous 
entertainment  of  one's  personal  friends  which 
is  now  commonly  called  '  h«jspitality.'  It  is 
rather  the  manifestation  of  our  loving  care 
for  the  stranger  guest.  [Instead  of  '  commu- 
nicating '  to  the  necessities  of  the  saints,  as  in 
the  Revised  Version,  we  prefer,  with  many 
others,  to  take  the  participle  intransitively, 
thus :  Participating  in,  sharing,  their  neces- 
sities— that  is,  making  them  to  be  as  our  own. 
A  fe.w  manuscripts  read  remembrances  instead 
of  necessities,  but  this,  according  to  Westcott 
and  Hort,  is  "probably  a  clerical  error,  due 
to  the  hasty  reading  of  an  ill-written  MS." 
'Given  to  hospitality ' — more  literally,  pursu- 
iyig  hospitality.  The  verb  from  which  this 
participle  is  derived  is  commonly  used  in  the 
sense  of  persecute,  as  in  the  next  verse.  Godet 
says  the  term  pursuing  "shows  that  we  are 
not  to  confine  ourselves  to  according  hospitality 
when  it  is  asked,  but  that  we  should  even  seek 
opportunities  of  exercising  it."  The  duties  of 
beneficence  and  of  hospitality  are  often  enjoined 
in  the  Scriptures.  Compare  1  Tim.  3:2;  6 :  18; 
Titus  1:8;  Heb.  13  :  12  ;  1  Peter  4  :  9.  From 
saints  and  strangers  Paul  now  comes  to  perse- 
cutors. ] 


1  "  How  much  was  Paul  himself  in  this  matter,  with  I  seq. ;  Phil.  4 :  12, 13  ;   1  Cor.  4:11,  seq. ;  8  :  13 ;  Acts  20 : 
all  his  fervor  of  spirit,  a  shining  model !    1.  Cor.  9  :  19, '  35 ;  16  ;  3."    (Meyer.)— (F.) 


270 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  XII. 


14  Bless  tbem  which  persecute  you  :  bless,  and  curse 
not. 

15  Rejoice  with  them  that  do  rejoice,  and  weep  with 
them  that  weep. 

16  Be  of  the  same  mind  one  toward  another.  Mind 
not  high  things,  but  condescend  to  men  of  low  estate. 
Be  not  wise  in  your  own  conceits. 

17  Recompense  to  no  man  evil  for  evil.  Provide 
things  honest  in  the  sight  of  all  men. 


15  that  persecute  you ;  bless,  and  curse  not.  Rejoice 
with  tbem  that"  rejoice ;  weep  with  them  that  weep. 

16  Be  of  the  same  mind  one  toward  another.  Set  not 
your  mind  on  high  things,  but  'condescend  to 
-  things  that  are  lowly.    Be  not  wise  in  your  own 

17  conceits.  Render  to  no  man  evil  for  evil.  Take 
thought  for  things  honourable  in  the  sight  of  all 


1  Gr.  he  carried  away  with 2  Or,  them. 


14.  Bless   them  which  persecute  you. 

This  seems  to  be  a  quotation  from  the  Sermon 

on    the    Mount.        (Matt.   5:   44;    Luke  6:   28.)        Paul 

doubtless  had  knowledge  of  this  injunction  of 
our  Lord,  though  he  may  hardly  yet  have  read 
it  in  the  gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke.  [The 
Kevisersomit  the  passage  from  Matthew's  Gos- 
pel. 'Bless'  (evAoYtire)  in  the  classics  means 
merely  to  sjieak  well  of.  And  curse  not. 
Only  those  may  curse  whom  God  has  commis- 
sioned to  imprecate  his  judgment  on  transgres- 
sors. To  love  and  pray  for  and  forgive  our 
enemies  and  persecutors,  or  those  whom  we 
deem  to  be  such,  is  a  hard  task  for  imperfectly 
sanctified  human  nature.  One  thought,  how- 
ever, may  help  us  thus  to  feel  and  act — the 
thought  that,  if  Christ  were  as  quick  to  take 
offense  and  as  slow  to  forgive  as  we  are,  none 
of  us  could  be  saved.  The  present  tense  of 
these  verbs  denotes  an  ever  present  duty.] 

15.  Rejoice  with  them  that  do  rejoice, 
and  weep  with  them  that  weep.  Chrysos- 
tom  remarks  on  this  verse  that  it  requires  a 
more  generous  spirit  to  obey  the  first  admoni- 
tion than  the  second,  since  nature  inclines  us  to 
weep  when  we  see  others  weeping;  but  in  the 
opposite  case  envy  is  apt  to  arise  and  make  it 
difficult  for  us  sincerely  to  rejoice  with  them. 
[In  the  New  Testament,  as  in  classic  Greek, 
the  infinitive  is  sometimes  used  imperatively. 
(See  Phil.  3:  16.)  Some,  as  Buttmann,  would 
supply  here  a  verb  (fiel),  meaning  "it  is  neces- 
sary," or  "I  exhort"  as  in  ver.  1.  "The  ex- 
hortation of  this  verse  is  most  important  in  our 
intercourse  with  our  fellow-men,  and  implies 
the  fullest  human  sympathy.  How  needful  to 
a  pastor!"     (Boise.)] 

16.  Be  of  the  same  mind  one  toAvard 
another.  [After  participles,  imperatives,  and 
infinitives,  we  now  come  back  again  to  parti- 
ciples. The  verb  be  ye  is  supposed  to  be 
understood.  The  meaning  is  (Be  ye)  think- 
ing,  having  in  mind,   the  same  thing,  etc.] 


The  word  used  here  refers  to  the  affections  and 
feelings  rather  than  to  intellectual  beliefs. 
Mind  not  high  things,  but  condescend  to 
men  of  low  estate.  The  words  rendered 
'high  things'  and  'men  of  low  estate'  are 
both  adjectives.  The  first  is  certainly  neuter, 
and  is  therefore  properly  translated.  The  sec- 
ond is  an  ambiguous  form,  which  may  be 
either  masculine  or  neuter.  [It  is  by  usage 
generally  masculine,  though  many  here  regard 
it,  from  its  antithesis  to  high  things,  as  neuter.] 
But  the  participle  connected  with  it,  and  trans- 
lated 'condescend,'  favors  the  masculiiie  sense 
of  the  adjective.  It  suggests  the  idea  of  leav- 
ing the  path  we  were  intending  to  walk  in,  in 
order  to  go  along  with  another  [and  is  gener- 
ally used   in   a  bad   sense.       (Gal.  2:13;  2  Peter  3:  n.) 

The  word  'condescend'  savors  a  little  too 
much  of  pride.  Be  companions  with  the  lowly 
would  be  a  better  rendering.  The  apostle 
would  thus  have  no  abominable  caste  distinc- 
tions among  Christians.  With  the  ancient 
Greeks  humility  was  not  a  virtue,  and  the 
Greek  word  for  humble  or  low  (Tan-eivos)  was 
used  in  an  ill  sense.  Plato  says  humble  {rairt- 
tVds)  and  servile,  and  even  Philo,  according  to 
Prof  Cremer,  uses  this  word  in  a  bad  sense. 
Yet  we  believe  that  a  few  Greeks  sometimes 
employ  this  word  as  meaning  lowly  rather 
than  low  or  mean.  Humility  in  the  Scriptures 
is  opposed  to  all  self-righteousness,  and  that 
man  is  humble  who  takes  a  low  estimate  of 
himself— "  esteems  himself  small  before  God 
and  men.'  Be  not  wise  in  your  own  con- 
ceits—  literally,  do  not  become  wise  ivith 
yourselves,  in  your  own  estimation  merely ; 
similar  to  11:  25;  see  also  Prov.  3:  7.  The 
self-conceit  which  the  apostle  condemns  is 
greatly  opposed  to  Christian  harmony  and 
union.] 

17.  [Recompense  to  no  man  evil  for 
evil.i  'Evil  for  evil.'  "While  Ellicott  (on  1 
Thess.  5:  15)  justifies  the  "ugual  and  correct 


1  The  participles  in  these  virtually  imperative  sentences  require  the  negative  form,  M»?5ei's  (no  one)  rather  than 
oiiSeii. — (F.) 


Ch.  XII.] 


ROMANS. 


271 


IS  If  it  be  possible,  as  much  as  lieth  in  you,  live 

Ptrita'ilf'bdovX'avenge  not  yourselves,  but  ratker 
eive  place  unto  wrath:  for  it  is  written.  Vengeance  is 
mine-  [  will  repay,  sailh  the  Lord. 

"oTl,Jref..re  if  thine  enemy  hunger,  feed  hira  ;  if  he 
thirst,  give  him  drink  :  for  in  so  doing  thou  shall  heap 
coals  of  tire  on  his  head.  


18  men.    If  it  be  possible,  as  much  as  in  you  lieth  be  at 

19  peace  with  all  men.  Avenge  not  yourselves,  beloved 
bat  give  place  unto  i  the  wrath  r,/  (w«/;  for  it  is 
written.  Vengeance  belongeth  unto  me;  I  ^"1' 'ecom- 

20  pense,  sailh  the  Lord.  &t  f  thine  enemy  hunger 
feed  him  ;  if  he  thirst,  give  him  to  dnnk  :  for  in  so 


1  Or,  wrath. 


Statement  that  Christianity  was  the  first  defin- 
itely to  forbid  the  returning  evil  for  evil,"  he 
does  not  deny  that  "individual  instances  of 
the  recognition  of  this  precept  may  be  found  in 
heathenism."  Certaimy  Socrates,  in  "  Crito," 
speaks  against  the  retaliation  of  injuries.  Pro- 
vide things  honest  (as  Paul  himself  did  in 
2  Cor.  8:  21),  have  a  care  for,  "have  regard 
to"  (Noyes);  found  elsewhere  only  in  2  Cor. 
8-  21  •  1  Tim.  5:  8.  This  is  virtually  a  quota- 
tion fron  Prov.  3 :  4,  Septuagint.  If  the  mem- 
bers of  our  churches  obeyed  this  instruction, 
' '  those  that  are  without ' '  would  have  to  provide 
for  their  famishing  souls  some  other  kind  of 
diet  than  "the  faults  of  Christians."]  The 
word  'honest,'  in  the  Scriptures,  always  has 
the  meaning  of  honorable,  according  to  the 
sense  of  the  Latin  word  from  which  it  is  de- 
rived. It  is  opposed  to  what  is  unbecoming, 
rather  than  to  what  is  unjust  and  unfair. 

18.  Live  peaceably  with  all  men— that 
is,  do  not  disturb  others,  and  do  not  be  dis- 
turbed by  them.  The  first  is  wholly  in  our 
own  power,  the  second  is  not;  hence  the  quali- 
fication, if  it  be  possible,  as  much  as 
lieth  in  you.^  ["Even  those  who  are  most 
quiet  and  peaceable,  yet  if  they  serve  God 
faithfully,  are  often  made  '  men  of  strife.'  We 
can  but  '  follow  peace'  ;  have  the  making  only 
of  one  side  of  the  bargain,  and,  therefore,  can 
but,  'as  much  as  in  us  lies,'  live  peaceably." 
(Matthew  Henry.)— A.  H.] 

19.  Dearly  beloved.  "The  more  diflScult 
the  duty,  the  more  affectionate  the  address." 
(Tholuck.)  [Avenge  not  yourselves.  As 
injury  may  be  more  than  an  ill  or  evil,  so 
avenging  oneself  is  more  than  repaying  evil 
for  evil.^]  Give  place  unto  wrath.  Allow 
room  for  God's  anger;  do  not  interfere  with 
the  divine  prerogative  by  taking  vengeance 
into  your  own  hands.      Other  interpretatiuus 


are  advocated,  but  this  best  suits  the  last  part 
of  the  verse,  and  best  explains  the  use  of  the 
Greek  article  with  the  word  wrath— [literally, 
unto  the  wrath  (that  is,  of  God),  so  most  com- 
mentators.    We  think,  however,  that  the  force 
of  the  article  cannot  be  pressed  here.     Com- 
pare with  this  Eccles.  38 :  12,  "  give  place  to  the 
physician";  Luke  14:  9,  "give  this  man  place"; 
also  Eph.  4:  27,   "neither  give  place  to  the 
devil."     According  to  the  usage  of  Paul,  the 
word  wrath  is  generally  applied  to  God.     If 
the  reference  here  be  to  men's  wrath,  then,  in 
accordance  with  the  idiom  of  the  above  pas- 
sages, we  should  naturally  expect  the  exhorta- 
tion would  be,  give  no  place  to  wrath,  which 
would  indeed  be  equivalent  to  giving  it  a  wide 
berth,  or  having  nothing  to  do  with  it.     Some, 
after  the  analogy  of  the  Latin  phrase  of  similar 
import,  dare  irce  spatiurn,  would  give  to  the 
word  'place'  the  idea  of  temporal  space,  thus 
counseling  delay  to  the  exercise  of  wrath  ;  but 
this  appears  to  us  hardly  admissible.]     For  it 
is  written,  in  Deut.  32:  35.     The  same  pas- 
sage is  quoted  also  in  Heb.  10 :  30.     [The  quo- 
tation follows  the   Hebrew  more  nearly  than 
it  does  the  LXX.      The  words   saith    the 
Lord    are    added    by   Paul   for  the  sake  of 
emphasis.]     It  has  often  been  said  that  belief 
in  a  God  who  takes  vengeance  tends  to  make 
men  revengeful.     This  passage  teaches  exactly 
the  contrary.     See,  also,  the  next  verse. 

20.  Therefore,  if  thine  enemy  hunger, 
feed  him,  etc.  ['  But  if,'  according  to  another 
reading.  'Feed him'  (present tense)— literally, 
by  morsels  or,  from  hand,  and  continually, 
see  11:  20.]  For  in  so  doing  (or,  by  so 
doing)  you  will  make  him  very  uncomfortable, 
until  he  finds  relief  by  coming  to  a  better 
mind,  which  he  will  be  likely  soon  to  do  under 
such  treatment.  [The  general  idea,  probably, 
is  this:    By   showing  this  kindness  you  will 


1  The  limitation  (as  to)  what  is  from  yon,  what  in  you 
lies,  what  depends  upon  you,  is  what  might  be  termed 
the  accusative  of  closer  specification,  or  the  accusative 
of  synecdoche.  See  ver.  5;  15:  17;  Heb.  2:  17;  5:1. 
The  idea  of  the  apostle  is :  Be  at  peace  with  all  men  if 


they  will  let  you.    The  verb,  be  at  peace,  is  found  else- 
where  in  Mark  9:  50;  2  Cor.  13:  11 ;  2  Thess.  5:  13.-(F.) 
2  Note  here  how  the  reflexive  pronoun  (themselves)  is 
used  for  the  second  person.— (F) 


272 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  XIII. 


21  Be  not  overcome  of  evil,  but  overcome  evil  with  I  21  doing  thou  shalt  heap  coals  of  fire  upon  his  head.  Be 
„QQ(j_  I       not  overcome  of  evil,  but  overcome  evil  with  good. 

CHAPTER  XIII. 


LET  every  soul  be  subject  unto  the  higher  powers. 
For  there  is  no  power  but  of  God :  the  powers  that 
be  are  ordained  of  God. 

2  Whosoever  therefore  resisteth  the  power,  resisteth 
the  ordinance  of  God  :  and  they  that  resist  shall  receive 
to  themselves  damnation. 


1  Let  every  soul  be  in  subjection  to  the  higher 
powers :  for  there  is  no  power  but  of  God ;  and  the 

2  powers  that  be  are  ordained  of  God.  Therefore  he 
that  resisteth  the  power,  withstandeth  the  ordinance 
of  God :  and  they  that  withstand  shall  receive  to 


most  effectually  subdue  him.  This  whole 
verse  seems  to  be  a  very  Christian  precept,  yet 
it  is  taken,  word  for  word,  from  the  Old  Tes- 
tament. See  Prov.  25:  21,  22,  Septuagint. 
Wordsworth  says  "the  Holy  Spirit,  by  the 
hand  of  St.  Paul,  has  indited  here  a  chapter 
of  Christian  Proverbs."] 

21.  Be  not  overcome  of  {by)  evil,  but 
OTcrcome  evil  with  good  — [literally,  in 
the  good  — namely,  which  thou  shalt  show 
thy  enemy.]  A  fit  condensation  and  close  of 
this  subject.  [Erasmus,  speaking  of  this  chap- 
ter, says:  "  No  song  can  be  sweeter."] 


Ch.  13:  Political  ayid  Social  Duties— Sub- 
jection to  Those  in  Authority.  [The  Jews,  who 
in  accordance  with  Deut.  17 :  15  were  to  have 
"no  stranger"  set  over  them  as  king,  were 
everywhere  restive  under  Roman  rule,  and 
even  in  Rome  were  not  wholly  submissive  to 
authority.  A  short  time  previous  to  Paul's 
writing  this  letter,  Claudius,  the  emperor,  as 
both  Suetonius  and  Luke  inform  us,  expelled 
the  Jews  from  Rome  on  account  of  their  con- 
stant tumults  {tumultuantes).  And  these  may 
have  been  Jewish  Christians,  since  their  leader 
or  instigator  bore  the  name  of  Chrestus,  which, 
according  to  Tertullian,  was  the  usual  way  of 
pronouncing  Christus  or  Christ.  But  in  this 
early  period  the  Roman  authorities  would 
scarcely  recognize  the  distinctions  between 
Jews  and  Jewish  Christians.  Gentile  Chris- 
tians also  may  naturally  have  felt  that  it  would 
not  be  an  unrighteous  thing  to  resist  or  even 
plot  against  such  a  wicked  and  idolatrous  gov- 
ernment as  that  of  Rome.  Hence  it  was  in 
the  interest  of  all  parties  that  Paul  counselled 
obedience  to  rulers.     Yet  the  principle  incul- 


cated holds  good  everywhere,  since  Christians 
everywhere  are  citizens  of  an  earthly  kingdom 
as  well  as  of  a  heavenly  kingdom,  and  they 
have  duties  to  perform  to  the  one  as  well  as  to 
the  other.  And  in  the  beginning  of  Christi- 
anity it  was  of  the  utmost  importance  that 
Christians  should,  if  possible,  win  by  their 
well  doing  the  favor  of  the  higher  powers.] 

1.  The  exhortation  is  emphatic,  every  soul, 
yet  in  distinction  from  the  higher  powers. 
The  powers  that  be,  not  the  powers  that 
were  before  the  last  change ;  this  simplifies  the 
dutj'  of  allegiance.  [In  passing  from  the  con- 
sideration of  the  duties  of  spiritual  to  those  of 
civil  life,  the  apostle  would  indicate  that  Church 
and  State  are  not  identical,  but  are  distinct, 
yet  not  antagonistic,  and  by  his  use  of  the 
phi'ase  'every  soul'  (properly  a  Hebraism  for 
every  person)  would  show,  according  to  Godet, 
that  a  duty  is  involved  which  is  naturally  in- 
cumbent on  every  human  being,  an  obligation 
not  specially  of  the  spiritual  life,  but  of  the 
psychical  life  which  is  the  common  domain 
of  mankind.  Be  subject — literally,  subject 
itself.  The  Revisers'  rendering,  "be  in  sub- 
jection to,''  gives  the  force  of  the  present  tense. 
'The  higher  powers,'  authorities  set  over  us. 
The  word  'power'  here  denotes  rightful  au- 
thority, and  this  is  from  God  as  its  source,  and 
all  established  authorities,  Rome's  imperial 
throne  included,  have  been  appointed  by  God. 
Literally  :  There  exists  not  authority  except  by 
God.^  Critical  editors  omit  'powers'  in  the 
last  clause,  and  give  the  word  'God'  without 
the  article.  With  this  verse  compare  Titus  3  : 
1;  1  Peter  2:  13.] 

2.  Whosoever  therefore  resisteth  the 
power.  [The  authority  which  is  here  sup- 
posed to  be  accordant  with  the  standard  of 


1  Observe  that  ecrTtV,  being  emphatic,  is  not  made  an 
enclitic,  as  in  ver.  3,4,  but  has  its  accent  simply  thrown 
back  on  the  penult.  The  Revisers  have  by  (iuro)  in 
both  places,  yet  render,  as  in  our  Common  Version, '  of 
God.'  Pe  Wette  and  Meyer  prefer /rom  (ano)  in  the 
first  clause.     The  fundamental   signification  of  airo, 


according  to  Buttmann,  is  departure  from  the  exterior 
of  an  object,  while  vt6  in  general  designates  the  more 
remote  internal  causal  relation.  Hence,  aird  commonly 
designates  the  more  remote  and  general,  while  imo  and 
«  the  more  immediate  and  special  cause  or  origin.— (F.) 


Ch.  XIII.] 


ROMANS. 


27? 


3  P'or  rulors  are  not  a  terror  to  good  works,  but  to  the 
evil.  Wilt  thou  then  not  be  afiaid  of  the  power?  do 
that  which  is  good,  and  thou  shalt  have  praise  of  the 
same : 

4  For  he  is  the  minister  of  God  to  thee  for  good.  But 
if  thou  do  that  which  is  evil,  be  afraid  ;  for  he  beareth 
not  the  sword  in  vain  :  for  he  is  the  minister  of  God,  a 
revenger  to  execute  wrath  upon  him  that  doeth  evil. 


3  themselves  judgment.  For  rulers  are  not  a  terror  to 
the  good  work,  hut  to  the  evil.  And  wouldest  Ihou 
have  no  fear  of  the  power?  do  that  which  is  good, 

4  and  thou  shalt  have  praise  from  the  same :  for  '  he  is 
a  minister  of  God  to  thee  for  good.  But  if  thou  do 
that  which  is  evil,  be  afraid  ;  for  '  he  beareth  not  the 
sword  in  vain:   for  'he  is  a  minister  of  God,  ao 

5  avenger  for  wrath  to  him  that  doeth  evil.    Where- 


right.  And  they  that  resist— literally  (Com- 
mon Version),  have  resisted.  Jowett  thus 
brings  out  the  adversative  sense  of  the  particle 
translated  'and':  but  (whatever  they  may 
think)  they  that  oppose,  etc.]  What  kind  of 
'  damnation '  (icpi>a,  judgment)  is  here  meant 
is  explained  by  the  ne.\;t  verse — punishment 
from  God,  through  his  minister,  the  magis- 
trate. ^ 

3.  [For  rulers  are  not  a  terror  to  the 
good  work.  So  the  Revised  Version,  which 
follows  here  the  reading  of  N  B  A  D  *  F  Y  P. 
Paul  could  hardly  have  made  this  unqualified 
assertion  of  rulers  had  the  infamous  Nero  then 
begun  his  persecutions.  The  apostle,  however, 
has  ideal  rulers  chiefly  in  mind.  "  He  is  speak- 
ing of  what  may  fairly  be  expected  to  be  the 
case."  (Wordsworth.)  Wilt  thou  then  not 
be  afraid  of  the  power  (or,  Dost  thou  ivish 
not  to  fear  the  nnthority  ?)  do  that  which  is 
good  (present  imperative — do  it  as  a  constant 
practice),  and  thou  shalt  have  praise  of 
the  same  {from  it,  or,  the  authority).  As 
Paul  does  not  here  suppose  rulers  to  be  tyrants, 
so  he  does  not  teach  us  what  they  who  live 
under  an  insupportable  tyranny  are  to  do. 
But  we  know  that  he  would  counsel  us  to  obey 
God  and  the  "higher  law,"  rather  than  the 
civil  power,  which  should  bid  us  violate  the 
divine  law.  And  how,  under  the  teaching  of 
Paul,  could  rulers  blame  their  subjects  for 
insubordination,  if  they  themselves  are  a  terror 
to  good  work,  and  not  to  evil  ?  Still,  we  agree, 
in  the  main,  with  Alford,  when  he  says :  "  Even 
where  law  is  hard  and  unreasonable,  not  dis- 
obedience, but  legitimate  protest,  is  the  duty 
of  the  Christian."     It  is  sometimes  a  duty  to 

suffer    wrongfully.       (l  Peter2:  19;  l  Cor.  6:7.)]      This 

is  wholesome  doctrine  for  subjects,  and  no  less 
wholesome  reading  for  rulers.  The  apostle's 
assertion  is,  in  general,  true  as  a  matter  of  foct, 
even  of  corrupt  and  oppressive  governments. 
The  Roman  government  had  actually  been  a 
protection  to  Paul  himself  on  several  occasions : 


In  the  case  of  Gallio  at  Corinth  (Act»i8:  12-17), 
the  town  clerk  at  Ephesus  (19 :  35-41),  Claudius 
Lysias  at  Jerusalem  (21 :  31-35;  22:  2429;  23:  17-30), 
Festus  at  Csesarca  (25 :  1-12).  [See  Farrar's  "  Life 
of  St.  Paul,"  pp.  323,  503,  504.  Godet  says: 
"  Never  has  any  power  whatever  laid  down  as 
a  principle  the  punishment  of  good  and  the 
reward  of  evil ;  for  thereby  it  would  be  its 
own  destroyer."] 

4.  For  he  (it,  the  authority)  is  the  min- 
ister of  God.  [The  word  for  minister  (Sioicovos, 
deacon)  is  thought  to  be  derived  from  a  verb 
meaning  to  run — hence,  a  messenger  or  servant 
Would  the  apostle  call  the  vile  and  carnal 
Nero  "a  minister,  an  officer  of  God,  a  repre- 
sentative of  divine  authority  "  ?  (Renan.)  We 
think  not,  certainly  not  a  worthy  representa- 
tive. And  we  think  that  no  words  could  more 
effectually  shake  the  throne  of  iniquity  which 
Nero  subsequently  occupied  than  Paul's  de- 
scription of  that  authority  which  is  God- 
ordained,  which  is  his  minister  for  good,  and 
which  is  a  terror,  not  to  good  work,  but  to 
evil.  He  beareth  —  or,  weareth,  denoting 
habitual  practice.  To  bear,  or  wear  rather, 
implies  a  constant  repetition  of  the  simple 
action  of  the  verb.  The  sword — or,  sabre, 
spoken  of,  was  a  bent  one,  in  opposition  to  the 
straight  sword.  As  individuals,  we  have  not 
the  power  or  right  to  inflict  capital  punishment ; 
and  it  may  be  a  question  whether,  in  strictness 
of  speech,  we  have  power  to  confer  it;  but  it 
belongs  to  the  God-ordained  authority  which 
is  over  us.  Paul,  on  one  occasion,  affirmed 
that  "if  he  had  committed  anything  worthy 
of  death,  he  refused  not  to  die"  (at  the  hands 
of  the  civil  magistracy).  Calvin  calls  this  a 
remarkable  passage  for  proving  the  jus  gladii 
(the  right  of  the  sword).  A  revenger  to  exe- 
cute wrath,  or,  better,  as  in  Revised  Version, 
"An  avenger  for  wrath,  or  punishment," 
upon  him  that  doeth  (or,  practices)  the 
evil.  'Avenger'  occurs  elsewhere  only  in 
1  Thess.  4 :  6.      Godet  thinks  the   '  wrath '   is 


1  The  reflexive '  themselves '  is  in  the  so-called  dativus  [  two  verses  the  frequent   use  of  rivaut  and  its  com- 
incommodi,  or  dative  of  disadvantage.    Notice  in  these  '  pounds.— (F.) 

S 


274 


EOMANS. 


[Ch.  XIIL 


5  Wherefore  ye  must  needs  be  subject,  not  only  for 
wrath,  but  also  for  conscience'  sake. 

G  For,  for  this  cause  pay  ye  tribute  also:  for  they  are 
God's  ministers,  attending  continually  upi 


thing 


upon  this  very 


fore  ye  must  needs  be  in  subjection,  not  only  because 

6  of  the  wrath,  but  also  for  conscience  sake.     For,  for 

this  cause  ye  pay  tribute  also ;  for  they  are  ministers 

of  God's  service,  attending  continually  upon  this 


God's  wrath,  which  the  magistrate,  the  repre- 
sentative of  God,  is  bound  to  execute  upon 
evil  doers.] 

The  last  clause  is  the  antithesis  of  the  first. 
The  duty  of  a  good  ruler  equally  includes 
both.  The  'sword'  is  the  symbol  of  the  power 
of  life  and  death. 

5.  Wherefore  ye  must  needs  be  subject, 
etc.*  Not  only  as  a  prudent  policy,  but  also  as 
a  religious  duty.  [Not  only  on  account  of  the 
magistrate's  wrath,  but  on  account  of  one's  own 
conscience.  (Meyer.)  Compare  1  Peter  2  :  13 : 
"  Be  subject .  .  .  for  the  Lord's  sake."  "  It  is 
self-evident,"  says  Philippi,  "that  a  Christian 
is  never  at  liberty  actually  to  co-operate  in 
wrong  even  on  the  demand  of  authority.  (Act.s 
4:19;  5:29.)  If  he  obc^'s  authority  for  God's 
sake,  he  cannot  obey  it  in  opposition  to  God." 
Whether,  if  called  to  obey  under  such  circum- 
stances, a  Christian  should  actively  rebel,  or 
cheerfully  submit  to  wrong-suffering  and  quietly 
pay  the  penalty  of  disobedience,  is  a  question 
on  which  judgment  and  conscience  must  decide. 
Philippi  says:  "Let  him  never  actively  rebel." 
Alford  and  Godet  would  not  apparently  counsel 
rebellion,  but  the  former  remarks  that  "even 
the  parental  power  does  not  extend  to  things 
unlawful.  If  the  civil  power  commands  us  to 
violate  the  law  of  God,  we  must  obey  God  be- 
fore man."  And  Godet  says :  "  For  the  very 
reason  that  the  State  governs  in  God's  name, 
when  it  comes  to  order  something  contrary  to 
God's  law,  there  is  nothing  else  to  be  done  than 
to  make  it  feel  the  contradiction  between  its 
conduct  and  its  commission."  He  further  as- 
serts "that  the  submission  required  by  Paul .  .  . 
does  not  at  all  exclude  protestation  in  word  and 
even  resistance  in  deed,  provided  that  to  this 
latter  there  be  joined  the  calm  acceptance  of 
the  punishment  inflicted."  In  this  our  free 
country  we  may,  both  as  citizens  and  as  Chris- 
tians, adopt  the  motto :  "  Resistance  to  tyrants 
is  obedience  to  God,"  and  also  to  law  in  its  best 
and  highest  sense.  "Whenever  man  com- 
mands us  to  do  anything  that  God  forbids,  or 
forbids  us  to  do  anything  that  God  commands, 
we  cannot  and  must  not  obey  ;  for  in  such  cases 


as  these,  in  obeying  man  we  should  be  disobey- 
ing God."  (Wordsworth.)  See  Dr.  Hovey's 
"Manual  of  Theology  and  Ethics,"  pp.  411, 
415.] 

It  is  to  be  noted,  that  the  above  precepts  and 
principles  were  written  to  the  disciples  at  Rome 
at  a  time  when  their  rulers  were  notoriously 
corrupt  and  tyrannical,  just  after  the  reign  of 
Tiberius,  Caligula,  and  Claudius,  and  during 
the  reign  of  the  infamous  Nero.  While  they 
certainly  atford  no  express  warrant  for  rebel- 
lion, even  against  the  most  cruel  and  unjust 
government,  they  are  not  to  be  quoted  as  an 
express  sanction  of  "the  right  divine  of  kings 
to  govern  wrong."  It  is  easy  to  see  what  evils 
would  have  resulted  from  any  explicit  sanction 
in  the  Scriptures  of  the  right  of  revolution. 
The  letter  seems  severe,  and  to  allow  no  excep- 
tion ;  just  as  in  the  case  of  parents  and  children 
(Col.  3:20),  husbands  and  wives  (Eph.  5:22, 24),  mas- 
ters and  servants.  (Col.  3:22.)  In  all  these  cases, 
the  letter  of  Christianity  is  modified  by  the 
spirit,  and  the  two  combined  admirably  adjust 
the  balance,  making  our  divine  religion  alike 
conservative  and  progressive,  alike  the  firmest 
supporter  of  order  and  the  truest  promoter  of 
freedom.  Note :  That  if  rebellion  or  revolu- 
tion is  ever  justifiable,  it  is  plain  that  the  sub- 
ject, and  not  the  ruler,  must  be  the  judge,  in 
each  particular  case,  both  of  its  lawfulness  and 
of  its  expediency. 

6.  The  words  pay  ye  tribute  may  be 
either  in  the  indicative  mood,  affirming  the 
fact,  or  in  the  imperative,  enjoining  the  duty : 
and  there  is  precisely  the  same  ambiguity  in 
the  Greek  as  in  the  English  :  but  it  is  better  to 
regard  the  verb  as  indicative  ['3'e  pay  tribute  '; 
so  De  Wette,  Meyer,  and  others],  thus  making 
the  familiar  fact  of  paying  taxes  a  confirma- 
tion of  the  necessity  affirmed  in  the  preceding 
verse  ('  for'),  corroborated,  moreover,  ('  for  this 
cause')  by  the  additional  consideration  that 
they  give  their  whole  time  to  this  divinely 
sanctioned  ministry  of  government — attend- 
ing continually  (see  12:  12)  upon  this  very 
thing.  ['This  very  thing'  is  not  the  collection 
of  taxes,  as  Olshausen,   Philippi,   and  Noyes 


1  Some  MSS.  (D  E  F  G)  omit  the  word  necessity  ('  must  I  present  text  the  copula  '  is '  must  be  supplied :  There  is 
needs  be')  and  read  the  verb  as  imperative.    In  our  I  a  necessity  to  submit  one's  self.— (F.) 


Ch.  XIII.] 


ROMANS. 


275 


7  Render  therefore  to  all  their  dues:  tribute  to  whom 
tribute  is  due  ;  custom  to  whom  custom  ;  fear  to  whom 
fear  ;  honour  to  whom  honour. 

8  Owe  no  man  any  thing,  but  to  love  one  another:  for 
he  that  loveth  another  hatli  fulfilled  the  law. 


7  very  thing.  Render  to  all  their  dues:  tribute  to 
whom  tribute  is  due;  custom  to  whom  custom;  fear 
to  whom  fear ;  honour  to  whom  honour. 

8  Owe  no  man  any  thing,  save  to  love  one  another: 
for  he  that  loveth  '  his  neighbour  hath  fulfilled  2  the 


1  6r.  the  other 2  Or,  law. 


suppose,  but  the  nobler  and  higher  function  of 
government,  indicated  in  tlie  preceding  verses. 
It  is  from  tliis  point  of  view  that  rulers  are 
said  to  be  minL^ters  of  God  in  behalf  of  the 
people.  Paul  in  15:  IG  calls  himself  a  minis- 
ter of  Jesus  Christ  for  the  Gentiles.  The  word 
in  the  Greek  denotes  a  public  minister.  It 
occurs  elsewhere  only  in  Phil.  2:  25;  Heb.  1: 
7;  8:  2.] 

7.  [Therefore  is  omitted  in  the  oldest  manu- 
scripts. Render,  pay  fully,  to  all  in  authority 
their  dues:  tribute  to  whom  tribute  is 
due.  Both  nouns  being  in  the  accusative  case, 
we  must  render  literally  thus :  '  paj'  fully  the 
tribute  to  him  (claiming)  the  tribute.'  Nothing 
was  so  grievous  and  offensive  to  the  Jews  as 
this  paying  of  tribute  to  a  foreign  power.  A 
"publican"  or  tax  gatherer  for  Kome  would 
be  a  despised  and  hated  person  apart  from  his 
extortions.]  The  distinction  between  'tribute' 
and  '  custom '  is,  that  the  former  denotes  taxes 
on  persons  and  lands,  and  the  latter  taxes  [cus- 
toms, duties]  on  goods  or  merchandise.  The 
word  '  fear '  may  be  referred  more  particularly 
to  higher  magistrates,  and  to  those  having  more 
direct  authority  over  us ;  and  the  word  '  honour' 
to  all  who  are  invested  with  olRce.'  There  is  a 
sense  in  which  all  men  are  to  be  honored,  as 
God's  creatures,  and  our  fellow  creatures  (i  Peter 
2:  17) ;  but,  over  and  above  this,  magistrates  are 
entitled  to  be  honored  for  their  office.  This  is 
to  be  rendered  to  them  as  their  due.  It  is  a 
sad  and  inexcusable  disregard  of  this  apostolic 
injunction,  when  persons  make  less  conscience 
of  defrauding  the  government  than  of  defraud- 
ing a  neighbor.  TertuUiansaj's  ("Apologet.," 
XLII.),  to  the  honor  of  the  early  Christians, 
that  what  the  Romans  lost  by  the  Christians 
refusing  to  bestow  gifts  on  their  temples,  they 
gained  by  their  conscientious  payment  of  taxes. 
[Even  our  Saviour,  as  a  loyal  citizen  ot  a 
heavenly  and  of  an  earthly  kingdom,  not  onl^' 
paid  the  temple  tax  (so  most  think)  which  was 
demanded  of  him  (Mau.  u:  27),  but  his  counsel 
was :  render  in  full  to  Csesar  the  tribute  and 
everything  else  which  belongs  to  Cffsar.  (Matt.  22 : 

1 "  The  article,"  Winer  says,  "  is  put  before  the  infini- 
tive (here  before  oyan-ai',  to  love),  when  it  is  desired  to 


17-21 ;  Luke  20 :  22,  seq.)  It  is  noticcable,  howcvcr,  that 
while  Paul  characterizes  even  the  civil  powers 
of  heathendom  as  ordained  of  God,  and  urges 
upon  Christians  the  performance  of  their  duties 
to  the.se  powers,  he  yet  counsels  his  fellow-dis- 
ciples to  settle  their  own  disputes  among  them- 
selves and  not  bring  them  before  the  heathen 
tribunals,  (i  Cor.  6;  i-s.)]  It  is  to  be  noted  that 
no  particular  form  of  government  is  alluded 
to  here.  Nothing  is  said  about  the  king:  the 
terms  are  all  general ;  the  '  higher  powers ; ' 
'  rulers ; '  '  God's  mini.sters.'  It  is  government, 
not  any  particular  form  of  government,  that 
the  Scriptures  represent  as  of  divine  authority. 

Love  to  all  men  enjoined.     Ver.  8-10. 

["  From  the  duty  of  submission  to  the  State, 
Paul  passes  to  that  of  justice  in  private  rela- 
tions" (Godet),  and  he  again  introduces  the 
subject  of  love,  since  love  is  an  "  indispensable 
auxiliary  of  justice." 

8.  Owe  no  man  any  thing,  but  to  love 
one  another.  This  maybe  literally  rendered  : 
Owe  to  no  one  nothing,  except  the  loving  one 
another.  The  two  subjective  negative  terms  in 
this  clause,  both  producing  in  the  original  but 
a  single  strengthened  negation,  show  the  verb 
'owe'  to  be  in  the  imperative  mood.^]  Leave 
no  debt  undischarged,  except  "the  undying 
debt  of  love"  (Bengel),  "which  you  must  al- 
ways owe,  because  this  alone  holds  the  debtor 
even  after  it  has  been  discharged."  (Augus- 
tine.) ["  He  loves  not  truly  who  loves  for  the 
purpose  of  ceasing  from  loving."  (Philippi.) 
He  that  loveth  another.  (Revised  Ver.<ion, 
margin,  the  other.)  The  last  word  was  chosen 
with  reference  to  the  preceding  'one  another.' 
Hath  fulfilled,  "the  perfect  tense  pointing  to 
a  completed  and  permanent  act."  (Ellicott.) 
Law  is  without  the  article  in  the  original,  yet 
that  the  Mosaic  law  is  meant  is  evident  from 
the  following  verse.  Paul  in  Gal.  5 :  14  saj's 
that  "all  the  law  (hath  been  and)  is  fulfilled 
in  one  word  :  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour  as 
thyself."  See  in  Matt.  22:  39  what  our  Sav- 
iour says  respecting  this  commandment  to  love 
our  neighbor.]  "  The  expression  'fulfilled'  de- 
make  it  a  substantive,  and  thus  give  it  greater  i»romi- 
neuce."— (F.) 


276 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  XIII. 


9  For  this  Thou  shall  not  commit  adultery,  Thou 
Shalt  not  kill,  Thou  shalt  not  steal.  Thou  shall  not  bear 
false  witness,  Thuu  shalt  not  covet ;  and  if  there  be  any 
other  commandment,  it  is  briefly  comprehended  in  this 
saying,  namely,  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour  as  thy- 
self. 

10  Love  worketh  no  ill  to  his  neighbour:  therefore 
love  is  the  fulfilling  of  the  law. 

11  And  that,  knowing  the  time,  that  now  i7  is  high 
lime  to  awake  out  of  sleep:  for  now  is  our  salvation 
nearer  than  when  we  believed. 


9  law.  For  this.  Thou  shall  not  commit  adultery, 
Thou  shall  not  kill.  Thou  shalt  not  steal,  Thou  shalt 
not  covet,  and  if  there  be  any  other  commandment,  it 
is  summed  up  in  this  word,  namely.  Thou  shalt  love 

10  thy  neighbour  as  thyself.  Love  worketh  no  ill  to  his 
neighbour:  love  therefore  is  the  fulfilment  of  i  the 
law. 

11  And  this,  knowing  the  season,  that  now  it  is  high 
time  for  you  to  awake  out  of  sleep :  for  now  is  2  sal- 
vation   nearer  to  us  than  when  we  first  believed. 


.2  Or,  our  salvation  jiearer  than  when,  etc. 


notes  more  than  a  simple  performance ;  it  adds 
a  completetiess  to  the  performance."  (Web- 
ster and  Wilkinson.)  ["  In  and  with  the  loving 
there  has  taken  place  what  the  Mosaic  law  pre- 
scribes in  respect  of  duties  toward  one's  neigh- 
bor, inasmuch  as  he  who  loves  does  not  commit 
adultery,  does  not  kill,  does  not  steal,  does  not 
covet,"  etc.     (Meyer.)] 

9.  [For  this.  See  8 :  26.  The  neuter  arti- 
cle in  Greek  makes  all  the  commands  which 
follow  as  one  .substantive,  which  is  properly  in 
the  same  construction  as  '  any  other  command- 
ment'—that  is,  subject  of  the  verb  '  is  compre- 
hended.' Comprehended  in  this  saying — 
literally,  united  in  one  head,  summed  up  in 
this  word.  See  Eph.  1 :  10.  Thou  shalt  love. 
This  command,  quoted  from  Lev.  19:  18,  is 
also  virtually  made  into  a  substantive  by  the 
neuter  article  {ev  t<?,  equivalent  to  namely), 
which,  however,  is  wanting  in  some  manu- 
scripts. As  thyself.  This  shows  that  there 
may  be  a  love  of  self  which  is  proper,  and 
which  is  far  removed  from  selfishness.']  The 
ninth  commandment,  'Thou  shalt  not  bear 
false  witness,'  is  omitted  in  the  best  manu- 
scripts. If  there  be  any  other  command- 
ment is  as  much  as  to  say,  "  Whatsoever  other 
(different)  commandment  there  may  be."  [In 
the  order  of  commandments  here  quoted,  the 
sixth  follows  the  seventh,  but  see  the  same 
order  in  Luke  18:  20  and  in  one  manuscript 
copy  of  the  Septuagint.  Probably  Paul  (and 
so  Philo)  followed  copies  of  the  Seventy,  which 
had  this  order.] 

10.  Love  worketh  no  ill  to  his  neigh- 
bour. [We  have  here  a  summation,  in  a 
negative  form,  of  the  precedmg  negative  com- 
mands. The  word  for  '  neighbour '  (nKriaCov)  is 
properly  an  adverb,  but  is  converted  into  a 
noun  by  the  use  of  the  article.  If  this  law  of 
Christian  love  should  control  the  hearts  and 


lives  of  men,  what  a  blessed  change  would  at 
once  be  produced  in  the  state  of  society !  A 
carrying  out  of  the  golden  rule  into  universal 
practice  would  be  an  infallible  cure  for  all  our 
labor  troubles  and  social  evils.]  Therefore 
love  is  the  fulfilling  of  the  law.  Love 
becomes  the  fulfilling  of  the  law  by  abstaining 
from  all  that  the  law  forbids.  [The  good  which 
love  would  do  for  our  fellow-men  is  understood 
as  a  matter  of  course.  And  where  there  is  true 
love  for  men,  there  will  necessarily  be  love  to 
God,  and  an  obeying  of  the  commands  of  the 
First  Table.  But  this  love  of  which  Paul 
speaks  is  an  ideal  love,  and  not  that  imperfect 
love  which  exists  among  men,  and  which  can 
never  be  a  ground  of  justification.] 

General  exhortation  to  a  Christian  life,  en- 
forced by  the  consideration  that  the  day  of 
trial  is  near  its  close. 

11.  And  that  —  And  this,  let  us  do  this, 
referring  to  ver.  8.  Knowing  the  time.  Let 
the  knowledge  and  consideration  of  the  time 
[special  season,  or  opi^ortunitj']  be  an  additional 
enforcement  of  the  admonition  to  discharge  all 
our  obligations  and  to  cultivate  love.  It  is 
high  time  to  awake  [or,  be  aroused  at  once 
from  sleep.  Compare  Matt.  25 :  5.  The  Bible 
Union  renders  it  passively  :  '  Already  were 
awaked.'  The  word  for  'high  time'  is  simply 
'hour,'  and  with  this  some  connect  the  adverb 
'already,'  rather  than  with  the  verb.^]  Time 
to  arouse  ourselves  from  torpor  to  a  more  active 
and  watchful  way  of  living — language  which 
may  have  been  suggested  by  our  Lord's  words 
in  Matt.  24 :  42;  Mark  13 :  33 ;  Luke  21 :  28-36. 
For  now  is  our  salvation  nearer  than 
when  we  believed.  The  reference  is  to  the 
beginning  of  our  faith  (when  we  became  be- 
lievers), and  to  the  end  or  consummation  of 
our  salvation.  [Meyer,  De  Wette,  and  Phil- 
ippi  render:   "now  is  salvation  nearer  to  us." 


lOn  the  use  of  the  third  person  {kavrov),  for  the  second  (aeavTov,  which  some  MSS.  actually  exhibit),  compare 
12 :  19 ;  John  12 :  8 ;  18 :  34.    In  Rom.  8 :  2:i,  the  third  person  is  used  for  the  first.— (F.) 
«  The  uncials  X  *  A  B  C  P  have  you  instead  of  «*.— (F.) 


Ch.  XIIL] 


ROMANS. 


277 


12  The  night  is  far  spent,  the  day  is  at  hand:  let  us  I  12  The  night  is  far  spent,  and  the  day  is  hand:  let  us 
therefore  cast  off  the  works  of  darkness,  and  let  us  put  therefore  cast  off  the  works  of  darkness,  and  let  us 
on  the  armour  of  light.  I 


Compare  10:  18:  "The  word  is  nigh  thee." 
But  Alford,  with  an  eye  to  Luke  21 :  28,  prefers 
the  rendering  of  our  Common  Version.  This 
salvation,  according  to  Prof.  Stuart,  is  "the 
spiritual  salvation  which  believers  were  to  ex- 
perience when  transferred  to  the  world  of 
everlasting  life  and  glory."] 

12.  The  night  is  far  spent  [has  far  ad- 
vanced. The  want  of  connection  here  "adds 
vivacity  to  the  expression."  (Boise.)  The 
metaphor  of  night  and  day  in  the  first  part  of 
the  verse  is  carried  over  into  the  second.  As 
when  we  wake  from  sleep  we  lay  aside  the 
garments  of  the  night  and  put  on  the  day 
dress,  so  we  should  put  off  the  works  belonging 
to  darkness,  and  put  on  the  weapons  (A  D  E 
read  '  works ' )  appropriate  to  the  day.  In  Eph. 
6 :  11, 13,  we  are  exhorted  to  put  on  the  panoply 
of  God,  the  whole  armor  which  God  has  pro- 
vided for  every  part  of  the  Christian's  person, 
except  his  back ;  for,  as  Bunyan  remarks :  "The 
Christian  has  no  armor  for  his  back."  The 
figure  of  putting  on  clothing,  or  eyiduing''-  one's 
self,  is  a  favorite  one  with  Paul,  and  the  Chris- 
tian life  is  by  him  very  frequently  represented 
as  a  warfare.  Compare  2  Cor.  10 :  4 ;  Eph.  6 : 
11,  seq. ;  1  Thes.s.  5:  8,  etc.] 

Commentators  differ  very  much  in  regard  to 
what  is  meant  by  the  night  and  the  day  in  this 
verse.  Some  refer  these  words  to  the  night  of 
adversity  and  Jewish  persecution,  and  the  day 
of  deliverance  from  this,  consequent  upon  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and  the  breaking  up 
of  Judaism  as  a  political  and  persecuting  power. 
But  it  does  not  appear  that  the  condition  of 
Christians  in  Rome  was  much  affected  hy  this 
event,  nor  does  there  seem  to  be  any  allusion 
to  it  in  the  context.  Another  view  is,  that  the 
night  designates  the  period  before  Christ's 
second  coming,  as  a  time  of  imperfection  and 
calamity ;  and  the  day  the  time  of  deliverance, 
prosperity,  and  happiness,  beginning  with  his 
second  advent.  This  view  is  held  chiefly  by 
those  who  believe  that  Paul,  and  the  apostles 
g-^nerally,  expected  that  Christ  would  come 
again  in  their  own  lifetime,  or,  at  least,  within 
a  very  short  time — a  view  which  we  regard  as 
derogatory  to  their  inspiration,  inconsistent 
with  his  express  teachings,  and  at  variance  with 


other  intimations  of  Scripture.  See  Matt.  25  : 
36;  2  Thess.  2:1-8;  2  Tim.  4:6-8;  2  Peter 
1  :  13-15.  [This  view  is  also  that  of  Meyer, 
who  holds  'the  night'  to  be  this  age,  the  time 
before  the  advent  (napov<Tia),  and  'the  day'  to 
be  the  coming  age,  soon  to  be  ushered  in  and 
bringing  salvation.  De  AVette  thinks  'the 
day '  corresponds  to  salvation,  the  period  of 
purity,  perfection,  and  blessedness,  which  is  to 
be  introduced  by  the  coming  of  Christ,  while 
'the  night'  is  "the  imperfect,  sinful  condition 
of  this  earthly  life."  Similarly,  Godet,  Phil- 
ippi,  and  most  interpreters.]  Others  under- 
stand by  'the  night'  this  mortal  life,  as  being 
to  each  one  a  period  of  comparative  ignorance 
and  trouble,  and  by  '  the  day '  the  time  of  each 
Christian's  deliverance  from  the  body  by  death 
and  entrance  into  the  immortal  life  of  knowl- 
edge, happiness,  and  holiness.  But  this  view, 
though  the  language,  taken  by  itself,  might 
easily  bear  this  sense,  seems  to  disconnect  this 
verse  too  much  from  the  preceding,  which 
seems  to  require  a  reference  to  some  change  in 
the  state  of  things  in  this  present  life,  of  which 
they  had  more  definite  knowledge  than  they 
can  be  supposed  to  have  had  in  regard  to  the 
time  of  their  departure  out  of  this  world.  [Yet 
Godet  asks:  "Is  not  death  for  the  individual 
what  the  advent  (n-apouo-ia)  is  for  the  church 
as  a  whole — meeting  with  the  Lord?"  And 
Philippi  remarks  that,  "as  respects  the  indi- 
vidual, death  is  equivalent  to  his  coming  to 
salvation,  the  resurrection  from  the  dead  equiv- 
alent to  salvation  coming  to  him."]  Another 
view,  which  I  regard  as  less  objectionable  than 
either  of  the  foregoing,  and,  on  the  whole,  to 
be  preferred,  is  that  which  refers  'the  night' 
to  the  season  of  pagan  ignorance,  immorality, 
and  wretchedness,  in  which  the  Komans  had 
formerly  been  living;  and  'the  day'  to  the 
season  of  Christian  knowledge,  purity,  and 
happiness,  which  had  begun  to  dawn  upon 
them,  and  which  was  destined  to  grow  brighter 
and  brighter.  "VVe  must  remember  that  thej' 
were  living  in  the  transition  period,  when  the 
light  of  Christianity  was  struggling  successfully 
with  the  darkness  of  pagan  idolatry ;  and  al- 
though the  overthrow  of  Paganism,  and  the 
formal    establishment   of   Christianity    under 


1  The  verb  here  used  is  ivSvu,  to  put  on.— (F.) 


278 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  XIH. 


Constantine,  was  yet  nearly  three  centuries  in 
the  future,  and  was  not,  on  other  accounts, 
such  an  event  as  an  inspired  apostle,  if  he  fore- 
saw it,  could  contemplate  with  unniingled  joy, 
yet  the  growing  progress  of  Christianity  and 
decline  of  Paganism,  which  at  last  made  that 
formal  change  possible,  was  matter  of  encour- 
agement and  rejoicing  to  every  Christian ;  and 
this  moral  revolution,  as  we  learn  from  the 
writings  of  Tertullian  and  other  early  Chris- 
tians, had  made  signal  progress  and  greatly 
changed  the  moral  condition  of  the  Eoman 
Empire  long  before  the  days  of  Constantine. 
As  to  the  great  event  of  our  Lord's  advent,  it 
is  certain — 

1.  That  the  apostles  did  not  know  when 
Christ  would  come  the  second  time. 

2.  That  his  coming  is  always  drawing  nearer. 

3.  That  it  may  be  considered  as  near  at  any 
time,  in  comparison  with  the  eternity  preced- 
ing and  the  eternity  following  it. 

[Most  commentators  hold  this  '  day '  (of  sal- 
vation), of  which  Paul  here  speaks,  to  be  our 
Lord's  personal  second  advent.  Some  charge 
the  apostle  with  advancing  mistaken  views  on 
this  subject  in  nearly  all  his  epistles.  Olshau- 
sen  supposes  that  at  the  date  of  this  letter  he 
had  ceased  to  entertain  such  views.  It  seems 
to  me  a  matter  of  certainty  that,  if  he  had  been 
mistaken,  he  lived  long  enough  to  find  out  his 
mistake,  and  would  have  been  honest  enough 
to  make  open  acknowledgment  of  the  same. 
Yet  this  he  never  did,  and  it  does  not  seem 
proper  in  us  to  be  the  first  to  charge  him  with 
error.  Others  think  the  apostle  never  had 
definite  convictions  as  to  this  matter,  and  that, 
as  the  day  and  the  hour  had  never  been  re- 
vealed to  him,  so,  though  he  may  have  had 
some  expectations  of  our  Lord's  speedy  return, 
perchance  during  his  own  lifetime,  yet  he  never 
fully  and  explicitly  declared  himself  on  this 
point.  But  I  think  his  language  touching  this 
matter  has  a  positiveness  and  explicitness  which 
do  not  belong  to  mere  conjecture,  and  that,  if 
he  erred  at  all,  he  erred  greatly,  and  has  ex- 
pressly declared  that  to  be  a  fact  which  events 
have  proved  to  be  utterly  false.  In  our  view, 
the  Scriptures  speak  of  several  diflfereut  com- 
ings or  manifestations  of  Christ.  The  first,  as 
we  may  name  it,  is  his  coming  and  manifesta- 
tion to  his  disciples  by  the  Paraclete,  or  Helper 
— that  is,  the  Holy  Spirit.  ( Jnhn  u :  is,  21, 23, 28 ;  le  .- 
16, 22.)    The  second  is  his  coming  to  receive  his 


disciples,  '*'at  the  termination  of  their  labors 
on  earth"  (Kipley),  unto  himself  in  his  Father's 
hou.se.  (Johni4:3.)  The  vcrb  "  comc  "  IS  here  in 
the  present  tense,  denoting  a  continuous  com- 
ing, as  if  to  take  individuals  to  himself  It 
was  in  this  way  that  he  received  the  spirit 
of  the  first  Christian  martyr,  Stephen,  and 
this  is  the  only  way  in  which  he  has  come  to 
his  disciples,  in  order  to  take  them  to  himself, 
from  that  day  to  this.  If  the  departure  of 
Christians  from  this  life  is  to  be  with  Christ, 
and  if  their  being  absent  from  the  body  is  to 
be  at  home  with  the  Lord,  then  surely  they 
are  not  obliged  to  wait  until  Christ's  final  com- 
ing at  the  Judgment  Day,  and  the  bringing  in 
of  the  blessed  resurrection  state,  before  he  will 
receive  them  to  himself!  The  third  we  may 
mention  is  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  man  in  his 
kingdom,  or  the  coming  of  his  kingdom,  which 
indeed  is  the  only  advent  of  which  our  Saviour 
spoke.  This  coming  is  said  to  be  on  and  in  the 
clouds  of  heaven,  with  great  power  and  glory, 
with  attendant  angels  and  with  a  great  sound 
of  a  trumpet.  And  one  purpose  of  this  com- 
ing was  to  gather  together  his  elect  from  the 
four  winds,  or  in  other  words  to  eff'ect  the  de- 
liverance or  "redemption"  of  his  people.  The 
time  of  this  coming  is  fixed  beyond  dispute. 
If  we  believe  the  Saviour'  words,  we  must  be- 
lieve that  it  happened  before  the  generation  in 
which  he  lived  had  passed  away,  and  that 
"some"  whom  our  Saviour  addressed  lived  to 
see  the  Son  of  man  coming  in  his  kingdom. 

(Matt.  24:34;  16:28;  10:23;  26:64.)     Whether  this  COm- 

ing  had  reference  solely  to  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem  and  the  abrogation  of  the  Jewish 
economy,  with  the  consequent  setting  up  of  the 
world-wide  Messianic  kingdom,  or  whether, 
including  this,  it  also  took  in  the  events  which 
transpired  at  and  subsequent  to  the  Day  of 
Pentecost,  we  need  not  now  endeavor  to  deter- 
mine. We  would  only  remark  that  the  com- 
ings of  Christ,  now  referred  to,  were  imper- 
sonal, and  that  as  the  first  mentioned  was  an 
actual  experience  of  the  apostle,  so  the  remain- 
ing two  might  be  looked  for  by  him  as  being 
at  any  time  literally  near  at  hand.  The  apos- 
tle in  2  Thess.  2 :  3-8  seems  to  speak  of  a  spe- 
cial apostasy  which  should  happen  in  the 
future,  a  revelation  and  coming  of  the  lawless 
one,  the  man  of  sin,  the  son  of  perdition,  com- 
monly regarded  as  Anti-Chri.st,  whom  the 
Lord  Jesus  shall  slay  with  the  breath  of  his 


Ch.  XIII.] 


ROMANS. 


279 


mouth  and  bring  to  nought  by  the  manifesta- 
tion of  his  coming.  And  as  the  occasion  and 
purpose  of  this  coming  seem  to  be  special  and 
limited,  so  many  (as  Edwards,  David  Brown, 
and  others)  regard  this  as  a  special  and  imper- 
•  sonal  coming  of  Christ,  and  hence  different 
from  h\s  second  personal  advent,  his  final  com- 
ing, which  is  to  bring  an  end  to  this  age  and 
this  Dispensation  of  Grace,  to  change  the  liv- 
ing, to  raise  the  just  and  unjust  dead,  to  judge 
the  world  of  mankind,  and  to  take  all  his  ran- 
somed ones  "in  clouds,"  "  into  the  air,"  up  to 
heaven,  to  be  ivith  him  forever.  The  question 
now  is,  did  Paul  affirm  or  expect  that  this  sec- 
ond personal  coming  of  Christ  would  or  might 
happen  in  his  own  lifetime?  To  this  question 
■we  say,  emphatically.  No.  When  he  says  to  the 
Corinthians,  literally.  We  all  shall  not  sleep, 
such  scholars  as  Winer  and  Meyer  do,  indeed 
suppose  it  necessarily  equivalent  to  saying; 
"None  of  us  who  are  now  living  are  going  to 
die;  we  shall  all  live  to  the  time  of  the  advent, 
and  then  shall  be  changed."  There  is,  how- 
ever, no  necessity,  even  in  the  expression  itself, 
for  this  interpretation.  See  Buttmann,  p.  121. 
Besides,  Paul  elsewhere  in  his  Epistles  to  the 
Corinthians  speaks  of  himself  and  others  as 
living  and  dying  and  being  raised  from  the 
dead,  just  as  we  do  of  ourselves.  See  1  Cor. 
6:  14;  11:  30;  15:  31;  2  Cor.  4:  14;  1:  8,  etc. 
De  Wette  well  saj's  in  substance  that  an  exe- 
gete  may  charge  the  apostle  with  a  false 
l)rophecy,  but  not  with  one  that  contradicts 
himself  The  expressions:  "We  who  are 
alive  and  remain,"  "  IKe  shall  all  be  changed," 
etc.,  therefore  prove  nothing  on  this  point,  or 
at  least  are  more  than  counterbalanced  by  the 
many  repeated  affirmations  and  intimations 
that  death  would  befall  himself  and  his  read- 
ers, and  that  their  mortal  bodies  would  be 
quickened  (see  8:  11)  and  they  be  raised  up 
with  Jesus  and  through  his  power.  Com- 
pare with  notes  on  2:  5.  See  how  after 
a  few  verses  more  (u:7,  8)  he  speaks  to  the 
Roman  disciples  of  living  and  dying,  as  their 
common  lot,  in  precisely  the  same  iiianner  as 
we  do.  Compare  Phil.  1:  20;  2:  17;  2  Cor. 
7  :  3.  We  have  also  noticed  some  of  the  great 
events  which,  according  to  this  apostle,  are  to 
occur  before  the  "end"  :  the  bringing  in  of 
the  fullness  or  the  great  mass  of  the  Gentiles, 
the  conversion  of  all  Israel,  the  consequent 
general  awakening  of  the  Gentile  world  to  a 


new  spiritual  life — life  from  the  dead — and 
then,  perhaps,  the  "falling  away,"  and  the 
'perilous  times,'  etc.  Surely  this  apostle  did 
not  imagine  that  all  this  would  happen  in  a 
few  months  or  years.  According  to  the  theory 
which  some  advocate,  we  should  suppose  the 
"men  of  Galilee,"  or  Christ's  apostles  and  dis- 
ciples, who  stood  looking  up  into  heaven  to 
catch  a  glimpse  of  their  ascended  Lord,  were 
assured  that  ihey  should  see  this  Jesus  coming 
in  like  manner  as  they  beheld  him  going  into 
heaven.  (aois1:ii.)  But  instead  of  this,  one 
of  these  Galilean  men,  not  many  days  after- 
ward, declared  that  the  heaven  must  receive 
(and  retain)  this  Jesus  "  until  the  times  of  res- 
toration of  all  things,"  until  "primeval  order, 
purity,  and  happiness"  shall  be  re-established 
throughout  the  earth.  Manj'  expressions  in 
Paul's  last  letter  (sTim.),  at  the  date  of  whose 
writing  the  time  of  the  apostle's  departure  by 
a  violent  death  had  come,  would,  if  found  in 
his  earlier  epistles,  be  thought  by  some  to  in- 
dicate his  expectation  of  living  to  see  his 
Lord's  return.  We  refer  to  such  expressions 
as  loving  Christ's  appearing,  giving  charge  by 
his  appearing  and  kingdom,  being  saved  unto 
his  heavenly  kingdom,  his  giving  to  Paul  the 
crown  of  righteousness  at  that  day,  and  his 
guarding  the  apostle's  deposit  against  that  day, 
etc.  Now  the  indefinite  "day"  of  our  verse, 
unlike  "that  day,"  of  which  he  speaks  to 
Timothy,  is  not  connected  with  any  appearing, 
advent,  or  revelation  of  our  Lord.  Throughout 
this  Epistle  the  apostle  is  wholly  silent  in  regard 
to  these  things,  and  we  doubt  whether  the 
Roman  Christians  were  so  familiar  with  the 
idea  of  Christ's  speedy  coming  in  the  flesh  that 
they  would  readily  connect  this  undefined  day 
with  that  event.  'The  day  '  of  this  chapter  is 
connected  by  its  context  with  the  doing  of 
one's  duty  as  citizens  and  members  of  society, 
the  duty  of  obeying  magistrates,  paying  trib- 
ute, honoring  and  loving  all  men,  walking 
becomingly  in  the  world,  and  mortifying  the 
deeds  of  the  flesh.  The  saints  in  Rome  kneio 
that  they,  in  common  with  mankind  in  general, 
were  entering  upon  a  bright  "  da3'  of  Cliristian 
knowledge,  purity,  and  happiness."  They  also 
kneio  that  life  was  but  a  vapor,  and  that  the 
day  of  "their  deliverance  from  this  present 
evil  world,  and  introduction  into  the  purity 
and  blessedness  of  heaven"  (Hodge),  was  at 
hand,  and  that  in  this  sense  (which  many  sup- 


280 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  XIII. 


13  Let  us  walk  honestly,  as  in  the  day ;  not  in  rioting 
and  drunkenness,  not  in  chambering  and  wantonness, 
not  in  strife  and  envying: 

14  But  put  ye  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  make  not 
provision  for  the  flesh,  to  fulfil  the  lusts  thereof. 


13  put  on  the  armour  of  light.  Let  us  walk  honestly,  as 
in  the  day  ;  not  in  revelling  and  drunkenness,  not 
in   chambering  and  wantonness,  not  in  strife  and 

14  jealousy.  But  put  ye  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and 
make  not  provision  for  the  flesh,  to  fulfil  the  lusts 
Ikereof. 


pose  to  be  the  right  one)  their  salvation  was 
nearer  than  when  they  first  believed.  There 
are  those,  however,  who  believe  that  the  apostle 
and  other  New  Testament  writers,  while  labor- 
ing under  no  mistaken  view,  may  at  times  have 
referred  even  to  Christ's  second  personal  com- 
ing as  being  near,  since  it  was  practically  coin- 
cident with  the  day  of  death  (Ellicott),  since 
it  was  always  near  to  their  feelings  and  con- 
sciousness (Hackett),  since  it  was,  and  is,  near, 
as  compared  with  ages  past,  and  since  it  was, 
and  is,  the  next  great  event  and  glorious  con- 
summation of  God's  eternal  plan  of  redemp- 
tion.] 

13.  Let  us  walk.  [With  ethical  reference, 
nearly  equivalent  to  live.  This  verb,  like  the 
two  immediately  preceding,  is  in  the  so-called 
hortatory  subjunctive.]  The  word  translated 
'honestly'  [from  an  adjective  which  means 
we'll  formed,  graceful,  becoming],  is  the  same 
that  is  translated  "decently"  in  1  Cor.  14:  40. 
It  means  'becomingly,'  in  a  manner  suited  to 
the  purity  and  dignity  of  the  Christian  profes- 
sion. [As  in  the  day — in  the  full  light  of 
day,  Avhen  one  avoids  unbecoming  behavior. 
There  is  here  a  latent  reference  to  a  previous 
walking  in  darkness.]  Not  in  rioting  and 
drunkenness,  etc.  These  words  explain  the 
works  of  darkness  named  in  the  preceding 
verse.  Three  classes  of  such  works  are  men- 
tioned— intemperance,  impurity,  and  discord ; 
and  each  is  described  by  two  words.*  The 
word  translated  'rioting'  ('reveling,'  see  Gal. 
5:  21,  and  1  Peter  4:  3)  refers  to  such  disor- 
derly carousing  as  characterized  the  festivals 
of  Bacchus.  [Godet  says:  "  The  works  of 
night  are  enumerated  in  pairs:  First,  sensu- 
ality in  the  forms  of  eating  and  drinking; 
then  impurity,  those  of  brutal  libertinism  and 
wanton  lightness;  finallj^  the  passions  which 
break  out  either  in  personal  disputes  or  party 
quarrels.  This  last  term  seems  to  me  to  ex- 
press the  meaning  of  the  word  (^^Ao?)  in  this 
passage  better  than  the  translation,  jealousy., 
or  envy."  Meyer  contends  {or  jealousy  as  the 
proper  meaning  of  this  last  term ;  Fritzsche 
and  Philippi  for  wrath  or  anger.      The  first 


four  Avords  (rendered  by  Prof.  Boise,  "ca-» 
rousals,  intoxications,  licentious  acts,  debauch- 
eries") are  in  the  plural  number,  which  here 
"denotes  the  various  expressions,  evidences, 
outbreaks,  concrete  manifestations,  generally, 
of  the  quality  expressed  by  the  singular." 
Other,  and  more  extended  lists  of  the  works 
of  darkness,  or  of  the  flesh,  are  given  in  Gal. 
5:  19;  2  Cor.  12:  20,  21.] 

14.  But  put  ye  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 
[The  j)utting  on,  or  clothing  ourselves  with, 
another  person,  "is  a  strong  expression,  denot- 
ing the  complete  assumption  of  the  nature,  etc., 
of  another"  (Ellicott);  in  other  words,  the 
most  intimate  spiritual  union  and  appropriation, 
such  as  is  indicated  by  our  baptism  into  Christ. 
(Gal.  3:  27.)  If  in  the  sight  of  God  we  bear  the 
name  and  person  of  Christ  we  are  reckoned 
more  in  him  than  in  ourselves.  (Calvin.)  This 
command  of  the  apostle,  to  put  on  Christ,  is 
addressed  to  those  who  had  already  clothed 
themselves  with  Christ  in  baptism.]  "  Christ 
put  on  man  in  nature  and  condition :  man 
should  put  on  Christ  in  disposition  and  charac- 
ter. He  became  partaker  of  our  physical  nature. 
"We  should  become  partakers  of  his  moral  na- 
ture. Christ  put  on  man,  that  man  might  put 
on  Christ."  (J.  Brown.)  This  is  the  robe,  not 
of  justification,  but  of  sanctification  or  personal 
holiness. 

"The  robe  of  righteousness  which  Christ 
gives  us  is  a  7nedicated  robe,  which  cures  the 
sores  which  it  covers,  which  heals  while  it 
hides."  (Alexander  de  Stourdza.)  This  word, 
put  on,  is  elsewhere  used  with  reference  to  the 
moral  disposition  of  our  Lord,  and  the  Christian 
virtues  and  graces.  See  Gal.  3:  27;  Eph.  4: 
24;  Col.  3:  10,  12;  1  Peter  5:  5.  Make  not 
provision  for  the  flesh,  to  fulfil  the  lusts 
thereof.  Take  not  any  forethought  for  the 
flesh  (for  corrupt  human  nature)  to  fulfill  its 
lusts ;  [literally,  with  reference  to  lusts.  Noyes 
gives  this  rendering :  ' '  Think  not  about  satisfy- 
ing the  lusts  of  the  flesh."  '  Flesh '  and  '  lusts' 
are  in  the  original  made  emphatic  by  position. 
The  flesh  here  is  not  regarded  as  that  which  is 
wholly  impure  and  which  should  be  "cruci- 


1  All  these  words  are  iu  the  dative  of  manner.— (F.) 


Ch.  XIV.] 


ROMANS. 


281 


CHAPTER  XIV. 


H 


IM  that  is  weak  in  the  faith  receive  ye,  bul  not  to  1 
doubtful  disputations.  I 


1      But  him  that  is  weak  in  faith  receive  ye,  yei  not  to 


fied  "  (Gal.  5:  2<) ;  and  hence  the  apostle  does  not 
absolutely  forbid  all  care  for  the  flesh.  We 
may  provide  for  the  flesh,  but  not  for  the  excit- 
ing and  gratifying  of  its  lusts.  We  owe  a  duty 
to  our  bodies  which,  though  the  seat  of  unlawful 
desires,  are  yet  consecrated  to  God  as  temples 
of  his  Spirit,  and  consequently  we  owe  a  duty 
to  the  flesh,  the  living  material  of  which  these 
bodies  are  composed.]  This  passage,  beginnmg 
with  ver.  11,  was  the  means  of  awakening 
Augustine,  and  of  his  conversion  from  a  dis- 
solute to  a  holy  life  : 

["I  flung  myself  down,  how,  J  know  not, 
under  a  certain  fig-tree,  giving  free  course  to 
my  tears,  and  the  streams  of  mine  eyes  gushed 
out,  an  acceptable  sacrifice  unto  thee.  ...  I 
sent  up  these  sorrowful  cries :  '  How  long,  how 
long?  To-morrow,  and  to-morrow?  Why 
not  now  ?  Why  is  there  not  this  hour  an  end 
to  mine  uncleanness  ? ' 

"  I  was  saying  these  things  and  weeping  in 
the  most  bitter  contrition  of  my  heart,  when, 
lo,  I  heard  the  voice,  as  of  a  boy  or  girl,  I 
know  not  which,  coming  from  a  neighboring 
house,  chanting,  and  oft  repeating,  '  toUe,  lege ; 
tolle  lege,'  'take  up  and  read,  take  up  and 
read.'  Immediately  my  countenance  was 
changed  and  I  began  most  earnestly  to  consider 
whether  it  was  usual  for  children  in  any  kind 
of  game  to  sing  such  words:  nor  could  I 
remember  ever  to  have  heard  the  like.  So 
restraining  the  torrent  of  my  tears,  I  rose  up, 
interpreting  it  no  other  way  than  as  a  com- 
mand to  me  from  heaven  to  open  the  book  and 
to  read  the  first  chapter  I  should  light  upon. 
....  I  grasped,  opened  (the  volume  of  the 
apostles),  and  in  silence  read  that  paragraph  on 
which  my  eyes  first  fell, — '  Not  in  rioting  and 
drunkenness,  not  in  chambering  and  wanton- 
ness, not  in  strife  and  envying,  but  i3Ut  ye  on 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  make  not  provision 
for  the  fiesh,  to  fulfil  the  lusts  thereof  No 
further  would  I  read,  nor  did  I  need;  for 
instantly,  as  the  sentence  ended — by  a  light,  as 
it  were,  of  security  infused  into  my  heart — all 
the  gloom  of  doubt  vanished  away."  (Augus- 
tine's "Confessions,"  VIII.  12,  28,  29.)] 


Ch.  14 :  Duties  toward  Christian  brethren, 
especially  toward  those  who  are  weak  and 
over-scrupulous.  ["  Behavior  as  to  things  mor- 
ally indiflerent."  (Olshausen. )  "A  practical 
application  of  the  law  of  love."     (Godet. )] 

1.  Him  that  is  weak  in  the  faith.i  One 
who  is  weak  in  the  faith  is  not  so  fully  con- 
firmed in  the  gospel  doctrine  [or,  "in  moral 
conviction  and  feeling"  (De  Wette)]  as  to  be 
free  from  all  Jewish  scruples  in  regard  to  dis- 
tinctions of  days  and  meats.  Aside  from  the 
Jewish  rules  in  regard  to  the  prohibition  of 
certain  kinds  of  animal  food,  some  Jewish 
Christians  had  scruples  about  eating  meat  or 
drinking  wine  at  all  in  foreign  lands,  fearing 
lest  they  should  incur  defilement  by  eating  or 
drinking  what  had  been  ofl'ered  to  idols.  So 
they  practiced  a  conscientious  asceticism. 
Compare  Dan.  1:8.  [Also  1  Cor.  8:7;  10: 
25,  seq. ;  Acts  15  :  29.  Pharisaic  scrupulosity 
in  regard  to  defilement  is  noticed  in  Mark  7:4; 
Acts  10 :  28.  The  question  of  meats  and  drinks, 
and  ceremonial  defilement  and  observance 
of  days,  must  often  have  agitated  the  early 
churches.  Compare  with  passages  already 
cited.  Col.  2 :  16-23 ;  1  Tim.  4:3;  Heb.  9 :  10; 
13  :  9.  These  matters,  and  especially  the  ques- 
tion of  the  use  or  non-use  of  the  Mosaic  ordi' 
nances,  shook  the  Apostolic  Church  to  its  very 
foundations,  and  never  since  has  the  stability 
of  the  Church  of  Christ  been  threatened  by 
questions  so  diflficult  and  momentous.  Who 
can  tell  how  much  the  Christian  Church  owes 
to  the  influence  of  the  Apostle  Paul  in  settling 
these  important  matters?  Who  can  tell  how 
changed  the  history  of  the  church  would  have 
been  if  Saul  of  Tarsus  had  never  been  "sepa- 
rated unto  the  gospel  of  God"?]  Receive 
ye — or,  take  to  your  hearts  in  brotherly  fel- 
lowship— but  not  to  doubtful  disputations^ 
not  to  discrimination  of  thoughts,  or  to  dispute 
about  his  scruples  ["not  unto  discussions  of 
opinions."  (Boise.)  Note  here  that  the  im- 
perative, as  usual,  is  accompanied  by  the  sub- 
jective negative  in  the  original.]  A  different 
class  of  persons  is  here  had  in  view  from  those 
Judaizers  opposed  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Gala- 


1  A  masculine  noun  or  participle  in  the  singular,  with 
the  article,  often  denotes  a  whole  class.  Possibly  the 
participle  here  used  does  not  denote  so  permanent  a 


weakness  as  the  adjective  would  have  done.  The  tran- 
sitional St  (but),  leading  over  from  a  general  to  a  special 
case,  is  not  noticed  in  our  Common  Version, — (F.) 


282 


ROMANS. 


tCH.  XIV. 


2  For  one  believeth  that  he  may  eat  all  things: 
another,  who  is  weak,  eateth  herbs. 

a  Let  not  hira  that  eateth  despise  him  that  eateth  not ; 
and  let  not  him  which  eateth  not  judge  him  that  eateth ; 
for  God  hath  received  him. 

4  Who  art  thou  that  judgest  another  man's  servant  ? 
to  his  own  master  he  standeth  or  falleth  ;  yea,  he  shall 
be  holden  up:  for  God  is  able  to  make  him  stand. 


2  'doubtful  disputations.     One  man  hath  faith  to  eat 

3  all  things:  but  he  that  is  weak  eateth  herbs.  Let 
not  him  that  eateth  set  at  nought  him  that  eateth 
not;  and  let  not  him  that  eateth  not  judge  him  that 

4  eateth:  for  God  hath  received  him.  Who  art  thou 
that  judgest  the  2 servant  of  another?  to  his  own  lord 
he  standeth  or  falleth.  Yea,  he  shall  be  made  to 
stand ;  for  the  Lord  hath  power  to  make  him  stand. 


1  Or, /or  decisions  of  doubts^ 


.2  Gr.  household  servant. 


tians,  and  also  from  the  ascetics  rebuked  in 
Col.  2  :  20-23.  [Compare  1  Tim.  4:3.  It  is 
"we  who  are  strong"  who  ought  to  bear  the 
infirmities  of  the  weak  (i5:i),  and  refrain  from 
disputatious  criticisms  of  our  weaker  brethren. 
The  word  '  thoughts '  is,  at  least  with  adjuncts, 
always  used  in  an  ill  sense  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment.    See  1:21.] 

2.  For  one  [the  'strong']  believeth  that 
he  may  eat  (hath  faith  to  eat)  all  things 
(even  such  things  as  are  considered  by  some 
unclean):  another,  who  is  weak,  etc.^  This 
verse  explains  what  is  meant  by  '  weak  in  the 
faith'  in  ver.  1.  One  who  is  clear  and  settled 
in  his  persuasions  has  confidence  to  eat  any- 
thing eatable,  whether  '  flesh '  or  anything 
'not  unclean  of  itself  that  is  set  before  him. 
Another,  who  is  timid  and  scrupulous,  confines 
himself  to  a  vegetable  diet.  [It  is  stated  in 
Josephus'  "Life,"  §  3,  that  certain  Jewish 
priests,  imprisoned  at  Kome,  not  forgetful  of 
piety  toward  God, "subsisted  on  figs  and  nuts." 
And  Jewish  Christians  at  Kome  would  natur- 
ally have  like  conscientious  scruples  in  regard 
to  eating  anything  which  was  "common  or 
unclean,"  or,  in  fact,  anything  prepared  by 
Gentile  hands.  Compare  Dan.  1 :  8-16 ;  Tobit 
1  :  10-12.  The  apostle,  who  reckons  himself 
among  the  'strong,'  treats  these  weaker,  yet 
conscientious  brethren,  with  great  mildness, 
since  they  had  not  relaxed  their  hold  on  Christ, 
and  hence  proceeds  next  to  "recommend  mu- 
tual forbearance,  on  the  principle  that  each  one 
serves  the  Lord  according  to  his  own  convic- 
tion." (De  Wette. )  Paul's  counsel  here  by 
no  means  warrants  a  church  to  receive  as  a 
Christian  brother  and  fellow-member  one  whose 
religious  faith  or  practice  is  seriously  defective.] 

3.  Let  not  him  that  eateth,  etc.  Note 
how  well  chosen  the  words  are.  The  eater,  in 
his  own  convictions,  would  be  in  danger  of 
despising  [literally,  setting  at  nought]  the  ab- 


stainer as  weakminded ;  the  abstainer,  cautious 
and  timid,  would  be  in  danger  of  condemning 
the  eater  as  too  bold.^  Note,  also,  how  the 
apostle  incidentally  sides  with  the  eater  in  the 
last  clause,  for  the  pronoun  '  him '  grammatic- 
ally refers  to  the  eater,  though  applicable,  so 
far  as  the  truth  is  concerned,  to  the  abstainer 
also.  The  same  thing  may  be  observed  in  the 
next  verse,  where  the  same  pronoun  has  the 
same  grammatical  reference.  For  God  hath 
received  him — hath  accepted  and  acknowl- 
edged him  as  his  true  servant. 

4.  Who  art  thou  that  judgest  another 
man's  servant?  It  is  none  of  thy  business  to 
pass  a  condemnatory  judgment  on  another's 
servant.  [Away  with  such  "presumptuous  in- 
termeddling! "  The  'thou'  by  its  position  is 
very  emphatic.  This  household  servant  (see 
margin  of  Revised  Version)  was,  in  many  cases, 
regarded  as  a  member  of  the  family.  The  par- 
ticiple (one  judging)  stands  here,  as  often  in 
the  New  Testament,  in  place  of  a  relative 
clause.]  To  his  own  master— that  is,  to 
Christ,  as  appears  from  ver.  7,  8.  [This  '  mas- 
ter '  is  the  '  another '  of  the  preceding  sentence. 
To  this  master  alone  does  it  belong  to  acquit  or 
condemn  his  servant.  And  how  comforting 
is  the  thought,  when  we  perchance  hear  of 
alleged  inconsistencies  or  misconduct  of  a  pro- 
fessed servant  of  Christ,  and  feel  it  impossible 
to  know  and  rightly  judge  all  the  circumstances 
of  the  case,  that  we  are  not  to  be  his  judge,  but 
that  to  his  own  Master  he  standeth  or  falleth.] 
Standeth  or  falleth — that  is,  stands  in  or  falls 
from  his  position  as  an  accepted  Christian,  with- 
out any  direct  reference  to  the  final  judgment. 
God  is  able  to  make  him  stand.  Willing- 
ness seems  to  be  implied  in  this  affirmation  of 
ability,  as  in  11  :  23.  [The  Revision  text  has 
here  the  adjective  'able'  instead  of  the  verb, 
and  reads :  The  Lord  is  able,  etc.  He  is  able 
to  support  the  (strong)  believer  whom  the  weak 


1  Instead  of  a  corresponding  another  (o?  Se),  as  in  ver. 
5,  we  have  here  the  article  with  the  participle — literally, 
he  who  is  weak. — (F.) 


8  The  phrase,  the  non-eating  one,  refers  to  a 
class;  hence  the  negative  f*^. — (F.) 


Ch.  XIV.] 


ROMANS. 


283 


5  One  man  csteemeth  one  day  above  another:  another 
esteeiueth  every  day  <ilike.  Let  every  man  be  fully  \^t- 
suaded  in  his  own  mind. 


5  One  man  esteenielh  one  day  above  another:  another 
esteemeth  every  day  alike.    Lei  each  man  be  fully 


one  judges.  Ferhiips,  however,  the  judging  is 
here,  as  a  general  term,  i)redicated  of  the  strong 
as  well  as  the  weak.]  The  ajjostlc  now  passes 
to  another  point,  on  whieh  the  difterence  of  the 
strong  and  weak  required  the  ai)plieation  of 
the  same  principles  of  mutual  forbearance  and 
charity. 

5.  One  man  (the  weak)  esteemeth  one 
day  above  another,  etc.— [literally,  judgeth 
day  beyond  day,  not  alternate  days,  us  would 
be  the  meaning  in  the  classics,  but  one  day 
more  holy  than  another,  while  another  es- 
teemeth (judgeth)  every  day  (holy).  On 
the  use  of  the  relative  instead  of  the  article, 
for  '  one '  and  '  another,'  see  9 :  21.]  The  word 
alike  is  not  expressed  in  the  Greek,  but  this, 
or  some  similar  expression,  is  needed  in  Eng- 
lish to  make  the  sense  plain.  One  man  regards 
the  Jewish  festival  days  as  more  sacred  than 
other  days;  another  man  makes  no  such  dis- 
crimination. Let  every  one  act  on  this  subject 
according  to  his  own  settled  conviction.  [From 
Paul's  language  here,  and  in  Gal.  4:  10;  Col. 
2:  10,  some,  as  Alford,  have  inferred  that  the 


» It  is  objected  by  some  that  we  do  not  oliserve  the 
command  of  God  if  we  keep  the  fii-st  day  of  the  week 
instead  of  the  seventh.  But  the  command  says  nothing 
about  the  seventh  day  o/  the  week,  much  less  does  it  en- 
join on  us  the  keeping  of  the  seventh  day  of  the  week 
as  the  week  is  now  reckoned.  Little  is  said  about  the 
week  during  the  long  Patriarchal  Dispensation  of 
twenty-tive  hundred  years,  and  nothing  is  said  directly 
of  the  Sabbath  till  we  reach  the  time  of  Moses.  There 
is  no  certain  evidence  that  among  the  ancient  nations 
which  adopted  the  weekly  division  of  time,  the  days  of 
the  week  everywhere  corresponded  to  each  other,  nor  is 
there  any  proof  that  the  weeks  and  the  Sab1)aths  have 
come  down  to  us  from  man's  creation  in  regular  succes- 
sion and  order.  No  one  can  now  tell  for  certain  which 
is  the  exact  memorial  day  of  (iod's  seventh  day  rest. 
The  command  is,  Remember  the  day  of  rest  to  keep  it 
holy,  and  we  certainly  remember  it  on  the  Lord's  Day. 
We  are  next  commanded  to  labor  six  days,  and  this  we 
do,  or  should  do,  it  being  as  much  of  a  command  as  any 
other.  And  after  six  days  of  toil  we  are  commanded  to 
rest  on  the  seventh,  or  keep  it  as  "  a  Sabbath,"  and  this 
connuand  we  obey  to  the  letter.  The  mere  calling  of 
our  Christian  Sabbath  or  Sunday  the  first  day  of  the 
week  does  not  in  the  least  militate  against  or  affect  the 
strictest,  most  literal  observance  of  the  fourth  com- 
mandment. And  we  cannot  conceive  it  to  be  a  crime  if 
the  Sabbatarian,  having  observed  as  sacred  the  forenoon 
of  his  Snliiriiiiy  Sabbath  on  the  east  side  of  the  day  line 
iu  the  Pacific  Ocean,  should  just  remove  a  hair's  breadth 


apostle  regarded  all  days  as  alike  common,  and 
that  "  Sabbatical  obligation  to  keep  any  day, 
whether  seventh  or  first,  was  not  recognized  in 
apostolic  times."  I  conceive  it,  however,  an 
impossibility  that  a  converted,  believing  Jew, 
of  that  age,  in  the  absence  of  any  express,  au- 
thoritative repealing  act,  could  come  to  regard 
his  historical  sjicred  Sabbath,  "the  Sabbath  of 
Jehovah,"  as  a  common  day,  and  its  observ- 
ance as  a  matter  of  inditference.  The  weekly 
Sabbath  of  the  Jews  was  distinguished  from 
all  other  of  their  festival  days  in  that  its  name 
was  written  by  the  linger  of  God  in  the  fourth 
commandment,  and  we,  as  Christian  believers, 
must  at  least  recognize  in  that  command  some 
essential  fundamental  jmnciple  that  is  binding 
on  us  and  on  all  God's  rational  creatures.  The 
Sabbath  was  made  for  man  and  therefore  for 
Christians,  and  we  believe  that  for  Christians 
there  remain  the  ten  commandments,  and  that 
for  them  there  remains,  in  a  literal  sense,  a 
Sabbcitismofi,  the  keeping  of  a  Sabbath. i  Elli- 
cott  says:  "The  assertion  of  Alford  cannot  be 
substantiated.     The   Sabbath  of  the  Jews,  as 


and  finish  his  Sabbath  observance  by  keeping  the  after- 
noon of  Svndnij,  the  so-called  first  day  of  the  week,  oa 
the  west  side  of  the  line.  But  granting  that  the  sacred 
day  has  been  changed,  have  the  great  body  of  Christians 
thereby  become  violators  of  God's  command?  No  one 
will  claim  that  the  Sabbath  law,  as  given  and  enforced 
by  Moses,  is  binding  in  its  literal  exactness.  Even  the 
strictest  Sabbatarian  obeys  it,  but  in  part  and  only  so 
far  as  he  thinks  it  accordant  with  the  Christian  system 
and  spirit.  The  only  question  which  on  this  subject  di- 
vides Christian  Inilievers  is,  how  much  of  the  Sabbath 
law  of  the  older  dispensation  shall  we,  under  the  teach- 
ings and  example  of  Christ,  transfer  to  the  new?  The 
Sabbath  was  made  for  man,  for  all  men,  at  all  times,  and 
eveiywhere.  Hence,  there  is  something  in  the  Sabbath 
commandment  which  has  a  perpetual  and  universal 
binding  force,  some  essential  princii>le  which  can  and 
should,  always  and  everywhere,  by  all  classes  of  men, 
by  travelers  abroad  as  well  as  by  dwellers  at  home,  be 
carried  out  into  practice.  This  fundamental  and  uni- 
versal principle  is  that  a  seventh  part  of  our  time  should 
be  weekly  and  statedly  kept  as  specially  sacred  to  Jeho- 
vah. We  contend  therefore  that  Christians  who  sacredly 
observe  the  first  day  of  the  week,  the  resurrection  day 
of  our  Lord,  as  their  Sabbath,  and  as  the  memorial  day 
Iwth  of  finished  creation  and  finished  redemption,  are 
not  chargeable  with  violating  the  fourth  command- 
ment, but  that  they  do  keep  it,  if  not  with  the  closest 
literalism,  yet  most  certainly  in  spirit  and  substance.— 
(F.) 


284 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  XIV. 


6  He  tliat  rt'gardelh  the  day,  regardeth  it  unto  the 
Lord;  and  he  that  legaidetli  not  the  day,  to  the  Lord 
he  doth  not  regard  //.  He  that  eateth,  eateth  to  the 
I^)rd,  for  he  giveth  (iod  thanks;  and  he  that  eateth  not, 
to  the  Ix>rd  lie  eatetli  not,  and  giveth  (iod  thanks. 

7  For  none  of  us  liveth  to  himself,  and  no  niau  dieth 
to  himself. 

8  For  whether  we  live,  we  live  unto  the  Lord;  and 
■whether  we  die,  we  die  unto  the  Lord  :  whether  we  live 
therefore,  or  die,  we  are  the  Lord's. 


6  assured  in  his  own  mind.  He  that  regardeth  the 
day,  regardeth  it  unto  the  Lord;  and  he  that  eateth, 
eateth  unto  the  Lord,  for  he  giveth  God  thanks;  and 
he  that  eateth  not,  unto  the  Lord  he  eateth  not,  aiul 

7  giveth  (jod  thanks.     For  none  of  us  liveth  to  himself, 

8  and  none  dielh  to  himself.  For  whether  we  live,  we 
live  unto  the  I>ord  ;  or  whether  we  die,  we  die  unto 
the  Lord  :  whether  we  live  therefore,  or  die,  we  are 


involving  otlier  than  mere  national  feniinis- 
cenccs  (with  Deut.  5:  15  contrast  E.xod.  20:  11) 
was  a  shadow  of  the  Lord's  Day.  That  a 
weekly  seventh  part  of  our  time  should  be  spe- 
ciiilly  given  up  to  God  rests  on  considerations 
as  old  as  creation,  and  that  that  seventh  portion 
of  the  week  should  be  the  first  day  rests  on 
ai)ostolical  and  jierhaps  inferentially  (its  the 
Lord's  appearances  on  that  day  seem  to  show) 
divine  usage  and  appointment."  '  The  verb 
fully  persuaded  we  have  had  in  4:  21.  The 
apostle  is  here  speaking  of  things  in  them- 
selves morally  indiflerent.  Though  one  of  the 
'strong,'  he  does  not  command  the  weaker 
brethren  to  eat  all  things,  or  to  esteem  all  da^'s 
alike,  but  he  leaves  these  adiapJiora,  or  things 
indifferent,  to  each  man's  judgment  and  con- 
science. Yet  if  a  weak  brother  is  convinced 
that  he  ought  not  to  eat  anything  common  or 
unclean,  and  is  grieved  and  made  to  stumble 
at  the  conduct  of  the  strong  brother  who  deems 
nothing  to  be  unclean  in  itself,  then  this  strong 
one,  as  we  shall  see,  is  counselled  to  yield  a 
point  of  indifference  out  of  regard  to  the  con- 
victions of  the  weaker  brother,  that  he  may 
not  for  the  mere  matter  of  food  destroy  him  for 
whom  ChrLstdied.  See  in  1  Cor.  6:  12;  9:  22; 
10:  23,  how  Paul  exemplified  his  own  precept.] 
6.  The  second  clause  of  this  verse — he  that 
regardeth  not  the  day,  etc.— is  undoubtedly 
spurious.  It  has  very  slender  support  from  the 
manuscripts  (none  from  the  oldest),  and  how- 
ever true  that  maj'  be  which  it  affirms,  it  ought 
not  to  be  regarded  as  a  genuine  part  of  Paul's 
letter.  [He  that  eateth  not  (that  is,  of  cer- 
tain kinds  of  food),  to  the  Lord  he  eateth 
not,  and  giveth  God  thanks  (that  is,  for 
those  kinds  of  food  which  he  does  eat).  It  is 
"  for  the  Lord  thsit  he  refrains  from  the  eating 
(of  flesh),  persuaded  that  this  abstinence  tends 
to  serve  the  interest  of  Christ."     (Meyer. )]= 


There  is  no  reason  to  regard  what  is  said  in 
these  two  verses,  the  fifth  and  the  si.vth,  as 
having  any  reference  to  the  first  day  of  the 
week.  We  know  that  the  practice  of  the 
earlier  Christians  differed  as  to  the  observance 
of  the  festival  daj's  of  the  Jews.  We  have  Jio 
evidence  that  tiny  Christians,  in  the  days  of 
the  iipostles,  neglected  to  observe  the  first  day 
of  the  week  as  the  festival  of  Christ's  resur- 
rection. The  word  Sabbath,  in  Col.  2:  16,  and, 
in  fact,  wherever  it  is  used  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, refers  to  the  Jewisb  Sabbath,  the  seventh 
da3'  of  the  week.  The  first  day  of  the  week  js 
never  called  by  that  name.  The  latter  i)art  of 
this  verse  establishes  the  fact,  attested  also  by 
other  evidence,  that  the  primitive  Christians 
were  accustomed  to  give  thanks  to  God  at  their 
daily  meals.  [For  Scripture  examples,  see 
Matt.  15:  36;  20:  26;  Acts  27:  35;  1  Cor.  10: 
30;  11:  24;  1  Tim.  4:  4.  Paul,  however,  may 
not  here  refer  exclusively  to  the  giving  of 
thanks  at  table.]  It  would  be  well  if  all  Chris- 
tians at  the  present  day  would  observe  this 
good  custom,  as  well  as  follow  the  wise  and 
conciliatory  counsels  of  the  apostle  in  regard 
to  censuring  one  another  for  differences  in  things 
neither  obligatory  nor  sinful.  The  apostle  now 
proceeds  to  give  good  reasons  why  we  should 
neither  judge  nor  despise  one  another  on  ac- 
account  of  such  differences. 

7,  8.  These  verses  contain  a  reason  why  we 
should  not,  in  judging  the  conduct  of  our 
fellow-disciples,  follow  our  natural  impulses, 
but  practice  self-control,  and  subordinate  all 
our  conduct  to  the  will  and  glory  of  Christ, 
whose  we  are,  whether  living  or  dying.  [For 
none  of  us  liveth  to  himself,  etc.  This  is 
true,  indeed,  of  our  human  relationship.  Every 
one,  no  matter  how  low  his  standing,  or  isolated 
in  society,  exerts  some  influence,  and  mxist 
exert  some  influence   for  good   or  evil    over 


'For  passages  where  the  "first  day  of  the  week  "is  |  11,1-5;  also  the  Article  Pentecost,  note  b,  in  Smith's 
expressly  mentioned, see  Matt.  28:  1 ;  Mark  16:  29 ;  Luke  I  "  Bible  Dictionary."— (F.) 

2-1:1;  John  20:19(26);  Acts  20:  7;  1  Cor.  16:2.    Some       2  N^tg  i,g,.g  ^jjg  j,j.e  in  the  original  of  the  two  different 
have  supposed  the  Pentecostal  outpouring  of  the  Spirit    negatives  (iu.>),  ou/c). — (F.) 
occurred  also  on  the  first  day  of  the  week.    See  Lev.  23:  I 


Ch.  XIV.] 


ROMANS. 


285 


9  For  to  this  end  Christ  both  died,  and  rose,  and 
revived,  that  he  might  be  Lord  both  of  the  dead  and 
living. 

lU  But  why  dost  thou  judge  thy  brother?  or  why  dost 
thou  set  at  nought  thy  brother?  for  we  shall  all  stand 
before  the  judgment  seat  of  Christ. 

11  For  it  is  written,  As  1  U%e,  saith  the  Lord,  every 


9  the  Lord's.  For  to  this  end  Christ  died,  and  lived 
aijaiii,  that  he  might  be  Lord  of  both  the  dead  and 

10  the  living.  15ul  thou,  why  dost  ihou  judge  thy 
brother?  or  thou  again,  why  dost  thou  set  at  uought 
thy  brother?  for  we  shall  all  stand  before  the judg- 

11  ment-seat  of  (jod.    For  it  is  written. 


others.  But  the  apostle  here  has  especially 
our  divine  relationship  in  mind,  and  asserts 
that  we  are  the  Lord's,  and  are  living,  not  for 
ourselves,  but  for  his  service  and  glory.  Our 
whole  earthly  existence,  our  life  and  death 
even,  is  a  service  for  our  sole  Lord  and  Master. 
"Neither  life  nor  death  can  make  us  cease  to 
be  his."  (Jowett.)  And  how  comforting  the 
thought  that,  while  we  cannot  do  many  things, 
or  any  great  things,  for  God,  we  can  serve  him 
in  little  things  in  all  our  daily  acts,  when  we 
toil  with  our  minds  or  toil  with  our  hands,  and 
earn  our  bread  with  the  sweat  of  our  brow — 
yea,  "whether  we  eat  or  drink,  or  rohatever 
we  do,"  we  can  do  all  to  the  glory  of  God  !  If 
we  live,  or  if  we  die,  we  belong  to  Christ,  and 
serve  him.  The  reader  may  perhaps  recollect 
that  the  words  of  this  last  verse  form  the  in- 
scription on  Meyer's  tombstone.]  Dr.  Malan, 
in  one  of  his  excellent  tracts,  speaks  of  death 
as  an  act  of  the  Cliristian,  his  last  earthly 
act  of  obedience  to  his  Divine  Master.  He 
does  not  have  his  spirit  torn  from  him  against 
his  will  and  in  spite  of  his  resistance,  but  he 
yields  up  his  spirit  at  the  divine  summons,  as 
did  Christ  himself.     (Luke23: 46.)i 

9.  For  to  this  end  Christ  both  died,  etc. 
The  words  '  and  rose '  should  be  omitted,  as 
not  belonging  to  the  original  text,  according  to 
the  testimony  of  the  best  manuscripts.  They 
add  nothing  to  what  is  expressed  by  the  other 
words  of  the  passage.  [Omit,  also,  'both,' and 
read :  Christ  died  and  revived,  or  became 
alive.  "The  aorist  often  denotes  the  entrance 
into  a  state  or  condition."  (Boise.)  To  this 
end  refers  to  the  final  clause  of  the  verse. 
The  dead  and  living.  The  order  of  these 
words,  the  reverse  of  the  usual  one,  is  made  to 
correspond  with  the  preceding  verbs,  died  and 
lived.  "Christ's  dominion  over  the  dead  re- 
futes the  notion  of  the  insensibility  of  the  soul 
while  the  body  is  in  the  grave."     (Bengel.) 


God  is  not  the  God  of  the  non-existent,  nor  of 
the  unconscious  dead,  but  of  the  living ;  for 
all  live  (not  merely  exist)  unto  him.  ( Luke 20 : 38.) 
And  so  the  apostle  says,  "  whether  we  wake  or 
sleep,"  whether  we  live  or  die,  "we  should 
live  together  with  (or  united  with)  him." 
(1  Thess.  5: 10.)  Paul  thus  plainly  teaches  us  that 
death  places  the  Christian  with  Christ  (com- 
pare 2  Cor.  .5:8;  Phil.  1 :  2.3) ;  and  so  he  may 
well  call  death  a  gain.  (Phu.  1:21.)  Yet  the 
Christian  may  not  experience  the  fullest  bless- 
edness until  after  the  resurrrection  and  the 
judgment.] 

10,  11.  The  main  subject  is  now  resumed 
from  ver.  3,  and  two  cogent  reasons  are  given 
why  we  should  not  judge  nor  despise  our 
brother :  First,  because  he  is  our  brother,  and 
second,  because  God  will  judge  him.  [The 
Revised  Version  gives  the  force  of  the  original, 
which  shows  that  the  questions  are  directed  to 
ditlerent  individuals — the  first  one  to  the  weaker 
in  faith,  the  second  to  the  stronger.  We  shall 
all  stand.  Those  who  judge  and  set  at  nought, 
and  those  who  are  judged  and  are  set  at  nought. 
"Note  how  decisive  is  the  testimony  of  such 
passages  against  any  limitation  of  the  univer- 
sality of  the  final  judgment."  (Meyer.)]  The 
judgment  seat  of  Christ.  [This  reading  is 
defended  by  Tholuck,  De  Wette,  and  Phil- 
ippi.]  It  should,  however,  be,  the  judgmeid 
seat  of  Ood.  The  reading  of  all  the  best  manu- 
scripts puts  this  matter  beyond  question.  And 
it  is  just  as  unquestionable  that  in  2  Cor.  5 :  10, 
"we  must  all  appear  before  the  judgment  seat 
of  Christ,"  is  the  true  and  undisputed  reading. 
(Compare  Matt.  2.5:  31.)  These  passages  are 
not  contradictory.  They  are  both  combined 
and  reconciled  in  Rom.  2:  16.  [Christ,  as  the 
glorified  Son  of  man,  will  sit  in  judgment  as 
God's  representative.] 

11.  For  it  is  written  in  Isa.  45:  23.  This  lan- 
guage, which  is  here  represented  as  spoken  by 


1  According  to  John  21  :  19,  we  can  glorify  God  even  I  "uniting  the  clauses  in  closer  logical  connection,''  then 
by  the  manner  or  kind  of  our  death.    Several  MSS.  I  says:  "Our  union  with  Christ  in  life  and  death,  and 


give  the  indicative,  rather  than  the  subjunctive,  form 
after eai"  («i — o.v),  if,  or,  whether:  but  that  mood,  after 
this  particle,  is  exceedingly  rare.  Prof.  Boise,  after 
calling  attention    to  the  oft-recurring   ri   of  ver.   8, 


his  entire  ownership,  could  hardly  be  expressed  in 
stronger  language.  Note  the  emphatic  repetition  of  the 
word  Lord."— (F.) 


286 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  XIV. 


knee  shall  bow  to  me,  and  every  tongue  shall  confess  to 
Ood. 

12  So  then  every  one  of  us  shall  give  account  of  him- 
eelf  to  God. 

13  Let  us  not  therefore  judge  one  another  any  more : 
but  judge  this  rather,  that  no  man  put  astumblingblock 
or  an  occasion  to  fall  in  kis  brother's  way. 


As  I  live,  saith  the  Lord,  to  me  every  knee  shall 

bow, 
And  every  tongue  shall  ^  confess  to  God. 

12  So  then  each  one  of  us  shall  give  account  of  himself 
to  God. 

13  Let  us  not  therefore  judge  one  another  any  more: 
but  judge  ye  this  rather,  that  no  man  put  a  stum- 
bling-block in  his  brother's  way,  or  an  occasion  of 


1  Or,  give  praise. 


the  Lord  (Jehovah,  in  the  Hebrew  of  Isaiah, 
sqe  ver.  19,  21,  25),  is  plainly  applied  to  Christ  in 
Phil.  2:  10,  11,  thus  agreeing  with  2  Cor.  5: 
10,  and  also  other  passages  of  inspired  Scripture, 
in  representing  Christ  as  the  final  Judge  of 
men,  and  identifying  him  with  the  supreme 
Jehovah  of  the  Old  Testament.  [The  original 
of  the  quotation  has:  "I  have  sworn  by  niy- 
self,"  instead  of,  '  as  I  live,'  "  and,  every  tongue 
shall  swear,"  instead  of,  'shall  confess.'  Paul 
here  varies  both  from  the  Hebrew  and  most 
copies  of  the  LXX.  The  words  "saith  the 
Lord  "  are  added  by  himself.  "With  the  use  of 
that  (oTi)  after  solemn  asseverations,  a  verb  like 
aver  is  understood.  The  verb  '  confess  '  is 
used  in  James  5 :  16  of  confession  of  sins,  but 
here  it  denotes  to  render  praise,  or  to  do 
homage,  whether  it  comes  from  the  heart  or 
not.  As  is  shown  in  the  next  verse,  each  one's 
giving  an  acccwnt  of  himself  to  God  is  a  con- 
fession made  to  him.  So  in  Phil.  2:  10,  11,  we 
are  taught  that  in  the  name  of  Jesus  every 
knee  shall  bow  and  every  tongue  shall  confess 
that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord.  Yet  this  does  not 
prove  the  truth  of  universal  salvation.  All  the 
enemies  of  Christ,  his  betrayers,  his  earthly 
judges, — Annas,  Caiaphas,  Pilate, —  his  mur- 
derers, will  give  account  of  themselves  at 
Christ's  judgment  seat,  and  by  this  act  a'.one 
they  will  confess  that  he  is  Lord,  and  will  thus 
do  homage  in  and  to  his  name.] 

12.  So  then  every  one  of  us  shall  give 
account  of  himself  to  God.  The  context, 
both  preceding  and  succeeding,  seems  to  re- 
quire a  distinct  emphasis  on  the  words  'of 
himself,'  with  an  almost  equal  stress  on  the  last 
words,  'to  God.'  [Looking  at  the  verse  itself 
'every  (or,  each)  one'  {'iKa<jro%)  would  be  the 
emphatic  word.  But  does  not  every  one  of 
these  words  have  a  fearful  emphasis  for  us 
sinners?  In  this  world  we  are  sometimes  lost 
in  a  crowd  or  overlooked,  but  nothing  of  this 
kind  will  happen  there  when  each  one  of  us 
will  give  account  of  himself  A  very  few 
manuscripts,  including,  however,  the  Vatican 


B,  omit  the  words  'then'  and  'to  God,'  and 
have  the  verb  in  a  compound  form,  but  the 
Revisers  abide  by  the  well-established  reading 
of  the  Common  text]  Every  man's  account 
will  be  perso7ial,  between  himself  and  God 
alone,  as  the  Judge.  And  this  consideration, 
in  both  its  aspects,  should  rebuke  and  restrain 
our  severe  judgments  of  one  another. 

The  apostle  now  proceeds  to  amplify  his  ad- 
monition of  the  strong  [since  these  are  not 
always  so  inwardly  and  strongly  bound  b}' 
their  convictions  as  the  weak],  not  to  use  their 
Christian  liberty  in  such  a  way  as  to  damage 
their  weaker  brethren. 

13.  Let  us  not  therefore  judge  [present 
tense,  continue  in  the  habit  of  judging  ;  but  if 
you  must  judge,  judge  this  rather— that  is, 
let  this  be  your  judgment.  'This'  refers  to 
the  following  clause:  that  no  man  put  a 
stumblingblock  or  an  occasion  to  fall, 
etc.  Notice  how  the  infinitive  is  made  a  sub- 
stantive by  its  prefixed  article,  and  compare 
2  Cor.  2:  1.]  The  word  'judge'  here,  in  the 
second  instance,  seems  to  be  used  nearly  in  the 
sense  of  resolve.  The  same  Greek  word  is 
translated  "determine"  in  Acts  3:  13;  20: 
16;  25:  25,  and  three  or  four  other  places,  and 
"decree"  in  1  Cor.  7:  37.  The  two  words 
translated  'stumblingblock '  and  '  occasion  to 
fall  '  differ  very  little  in  sense.  Each  is  more 
than  once  translated  by  the  same  words,  'stum- 
blingblock,' 'offence,'  and  they  are  joined 
together  in  9 :  33 ;  1  Peter  2 :  8,  as  well  as  in  this 
passage.  They  are  applied  to  any  act  or  course 
of  conduct  which  tends  to  provoke  others  to  sin. 
[Some  regard  the  former  (stone  or  block  of 
wood)  as  the  larger  obstacle  against  which  one 
would  be  very  likely  to  fall,  and  the  latter 
(trap  or  trapstick)  as  a  smaller  and  more  hidden 
obstacle  which  might  occasion  his  fall  or  hinder 
his  progress.  The  word  for  trap  ((TKavSa^ov,  see 
9:  33;  11:  9;  16:  17)  is  found  twenty-five 
times  in  the  LXX.  and  fifteen  times  in  the 
New  Testament,  but  seldom  occurs  in  Greek 
profane  writers-.] 


Ch.  XIV.] 


ROMANS. 


287 


14  I  know  and  im  persuaded  by  the  Lord  Jesus,  that 
there  is  nothing  unclean  of  itself:  but  to  hiiu  that 
esteeiueth  any  thing  to  be  unclean,  to  hiiu  il  is  unclean. 

15  But  if  thy  brother  be  grieved  with  Ihi/  meat,  now 
■walke.st  tliou  not  churitalily.  Destroy  not  him  witn  thy 
meat,  for  whom  Christ  died. 

16  Let  not  then  your  good  be  evil  spoken  of: 


14  falling.  I  know,  and  am  persuaded  in  the  Lord 
Jesus,  that  nothing  is  unclean  of  itself:  save  that  to 
him  who  accounteth  anything  to  be  unclean,  to  him 

15  it  is  unclean.  I'or  if  because  of  meat  thy  brother  is 
grieved,  thou  walkest  no  longer  in  love.     Destroy  not 

16  with  thy  meat  him  for  whom  Christ  died.     Let  not 

17  then  your  good  be  evil  spoken  of:  for  the  kingdom 


14.  I  know,  and  am  persuaded,  has  the 

appearance  of  an  aiiti-fliinux,  and  would  really 
be  such  were  the  latter  verb  sej>arated  from 
its  accompanying  word.s  by  the  Lord  Jesus— 
[literally,  in  the  Lord  Jesus,  in  conscious  fel- 
lowship with  him].  This  adjunct  imparts  a 
sacredness  to  his  i)ersuasi(^n  which  raises  it 
above  the  simi>le  '  I  know.'  There  is  nothing 
unclean  of  itself.^  Is  not  this  virtually'  an 
affirmation  that  the  Mosaic  prohibitions  in 
regard  to  particular  kinds  of  meats  had 
no  foundation  or  reason  in  the  nature  of  the 
meats  themselves?  Compare  Acts  10  :  28; 
1  Tim.  4 :  3,  4.  The  apostle  here  dechires  his 
theoretical  agreement  with  those  who  did  not 
regard  the  Mosaic  distinctions  of  meats  as  any 
longer  binding ;  and  this  declaration  adds 
emphasis  to  his  injunctions  to  those  whom  he 
recognizes  as  having  a  right  view  of  their 
liberty,  not  to  use  it  in  such  a  way  as  to  give 
offence  or  to  present  ten;ptation  to  their  weaker 
brethren.  For  that  which  he  and  those  whom 
he  is  admonishing  knew  to  be  in  itself  lawful 
for  them  would  defile  the  conscience  of  the 
weaker  brethren  if  they  should  eat  the  same 
meats  without  the  same  convictions.  The  i)rin- 
ciple  is  an  important  one.  Men  are  not  always 
doing  right  when  they  act  according  to  their 
consciences,  for  conscience  is  not  the  ultimate 
standard  of  right,  since  it  may  be  only  jiar- 
tially  enlightened.  But  men  are  always  guilty 
when  they  act  contrary  to  their  consciences, 
when  they  do  what  they  do  not  believe  to  be 
right.  Paul  was  conscientious  in  persecuting 
Christians  before  his  conversion  (Act^26: 9),  but 
this  did  not  make  his  conduct  right  as  he  him- 
self came  fully  to  understand  afterward,  (i  Cor. 
15:9.)  There  was  nothing  morally  defiling  in 
eating  meats  that  had  once  been  forbidden  to 


the  Jews,  but  [«»  ^^  forming  an  exception  to 
the  nothing  uncleati]  they  would  defile  the 
conscience  of  him  who  should  eat  them,  believ- 
ing them  to  be  still  ibrbiddon. 

15.  But  if  thy  brother  be  grieved.  [In- 
stead of  'but,'  the  Revised  Version  has /or. 
For  if  on  account  of  meat  (or,  food)  'thy 
brother  be  grieved.'  The  thought  of  this  verse, 
with  this  rendering,  seems  closely  connected 
with  ver.  13.]  'Be  grieved' — be  not  only  dis- 
pleased for  the  moment,  but  led  by  thy  exam- 
ple to  do  that  on  account  of  which  he  will 
afterward  be  grieved  with  himself.  Walkest 
thou  not  charitably— literally,  loalkest  not 
according  to  love,  actest  in  a  way  which  due 
love  to  thy  brother  forbids.  [Such  love  as  this 
"  worketh  no  ill  to  his  neighbor."  The  apostle 
here  sets  forth  a  very  high  and  heavenly  mo- 
rality.] Destroy  uot  him.  "Do  not  pursue 
a  course  which  tends,  by  leading  him  into  sin, 
to  destroy  his  soul,  and  which  will,  at  least,  de- 
stroy his  peace."  Bengel's  note  on  the  la-st 
clause  of  this  verse  is  very  pertinent  and  force- 
ful :  "Do  not  make  more  account  of  his  meat 
than  Christ  did  of  his  life."  [Similarly,  Al- 
ford:  "Ruining,  ...  by  a  meal  of  thine,  a 
brother  for  whoin  Christ  died!"  See  1  Cor. 
8  :  11.  Notwithstanding  the  conative  force  of 
the  present  tense  (do  not  attempt  to  destroy), 
Paul  would  here  seem  to  teach  that  a  person 
may  perish  for  whom  Christ  died.  But  this 
does  not  jirove  that  any  one  whom  he  purposed 
to  save  will  ever  fatally  apostatize  and  finally 
perish.] 

16.  Let  not  then  your  good  be  evil 
spoken  of.  Their  liberty  in  regard  to  dis- 
tinction of  meats  was  a  good  thing,  but  there 
was  need  of  caution  in  the  use  of  it,  lest  it 
should  become  an  occasion  of  division  among 


1  Literally:  Common  through  itself.  Three  important 
MS.S.  X  B  C,  have  here  the  full  form  eai^roO  (of  itself), 
while  other  MSS.  have  a  shorter  form.  Alford  i)refers  the 
contracted  form  of  the  reflexive,  outoC,  while  Meyer 
adopts  the  personal  aurov  of  the  neuter  gender.  Some, 
regarding  it  as  ma.sculinc,  have  referred  this  last  form  to 
Christ ;  tli rough  him  there  is  no  longer  anything  unclean. 
The  older  MSS.  do  not  give  the  breathings,  and  most 
critical  editors  of  the  Kcw  Testament  do  uot  give  any 


contracted  forms  of  the  reflexive  pronoun  in  the  third 
person.  Both  of  the  above  verbs,  'I  know'  and  'aiii 
persuaded,'  are  perfect  in  form.  On  'I  know'  (oliai, 
see  7:  7.  Philippi  thinks  that  the  apostle  here  specially 
exhorts  the  strong,  because  their  numbers  were  proha- 
bly  preponderant  in  the  Roman  Church,  and  their  in- 
fluence over  the  weak  was  more  to  be  feared  than  the 
influence  of  the  latter  on  the  former. — (F.) 


288 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  XIV. 


17  For  the  kingdom  of  God  is  not  meat  and  drink  ; 
but  righteousness,  and  peace,  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost. 

IS  1-  or  he  that  iu  these  things  serveth  Christ  is  accept- 
able to  (iod,  and  approved  of  men. 

19  Let  us  therefore  follow  after  the  things  which 
make  for  peace,  and  things  wherewith  one  may  edify 
another.  ,,    ,  . 

20  1-  or  meat  destroy  not  the  work  of  God.  All  things 
indeed  are  pure;  but  il  is  evil  for  that  man  who  eateth 
with  offence. 


of  God  is  not  eating  and  drinking,  but  righteousness 

18  and  peace  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Spirit.  For  he  that 
herein  serveth  Christ   is  well-pleasing  to  God,  and 

19  approved  of  men.  So  then  i  let  us  follow  after  things 
which  make  for  peace,  and  things  whereby  we  may 

20  edify  one  another.  Overthrow  not  for  meat's  sake 
the  work  of  God.  All  things  indeed  are  clean  ;  how- 
beit  it  is  evil  for  that  man  who  eateth  with  offence. 


1  Many  ancieut  authorities  read  we  follow. 


brethren,  and  so  a  reproach  to  the  Church  of 
Christ.  It  surely  was  not  worth  while  to  run 
so  great  a  risk.  ['Your  good,'  according  to 
Meyer,  is  the  kingdom  of  God ;  with  Philippi, 
it  is  the  gospel;  with  De  Wette,  it  is  your 
strong  faith.  Let  not  your  strength  of  faith, 
by  reason  of  strife  and  schism,  be  calumniouslj' 
spoken  of  by  the  heathen  or  unbelievers.  The 
uncials  D  E  F  G  read— "owr  good.'"] 

17.  The  kingdom  of  God  is  not  meat 
and  drink — or,  true  religion  does  not  consist 
in  such  external  observances  as  eating  and 
drinking,  but  that  kingdom  is  within  you  (^^^•'. 
18 :  m),  and  consists  in  rigliteousness,  rectitude 
of  character,  inward  peace,  and  joy  in  the 
Holy  Ghost  (or  Spirit),  the  Holy  Spirit  being 
the  source  of  true  religious  peace  and  joy.  [If 
regard  be  had  to  our  relation  to  God,  then  this 
'kingdom  of  God'  (here  mentioned  for  the  first 
time  in  this  Epistle)  would  consist,  as  De  "Wette 
states  it,  in  "righteousness  in  its  full  sense, 
including  justification,"  as  also  in  our  peace 
toward  God  as  well  as  in  inward  peace.  In 
Meyer's  view,  this  kingdom  of  God  is  not  an 
earthly  moral  kingdom,  but  the  future  Messi- 
anic kingdom,  to  be  ushered  in  at  the  second 
coming  of  Christ — a  sadly  distorted  view  of  the 
reign  of  Christ  in  and  among  the  children  of 
men.  ] 

18.  For  he  that  in  these  things  serveth 
Christ.  He  who  cultivates  the  three  great 
Christian  graces  just  mentioned  will  not  only 
be  acceptable  to  (or,  please)  God  and  secure 
his  favor,  but  will  also  be  approved  of  men 
[will  be  able  to  .stand  their  testing^  and  be 
secure  against  having  his  good  evil  spoken  of 
(Ver.  i«.)  [Instead  of  '  these  things,'  most  manu- 
scripts have  the  reading  of  the  Kevised  text, 
this.,  which,  grammatically,  refers  to  the 
'Spirit,'  or  to  the  i)hrase  'joy  in  the  Holy 
Ghost'  ;  or  possibly  it  might  ex])ress,  as  Alford 
states  it,  "the  aggregate  of  the  three  " — that  is, 
righteousness,  peace,  and  joy.     But  most  ex- 


positors, disregarding  the  preponderating  evi- 
dence of  the  MSS.,  prefer  the  plural,  these, 
referring  to  the  three  great  moral  elements  just 
mentioned.  These,  if  taken  in  their  Scriptural 
sense,  are  to  be  viewed  doctrinally  as  well  as 
ethicallj',  else  we  should  be  obliged  to  regard  a 
just,  peaceful,  cheerful  man  as  a  true  Christian. 
(Hodge.)  The  elements,  the  great  gifts  and 
graces  which  constitute  the  essence  of  God's 
kingdom,  are  not  of  earth  or  of  self,  but  of  God, 
and  are,  indeed,  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit] 

19.  Let  us  therefore  follow  after  [let  us 
eagerly  pursue  (the  word  for  persecute)  the 
things  which  make  for  peace,  or,  tilings 
of  peace — that  is,  which  belong  to  and  tend  to 
peace.  With  the  second  clause,  some  less  im- 
portant manuscripts  supply  the  verb :  Let  us 
guard  or  keep].  To  edify  is,  literally,  to  build 
up.  Both  the  individual  Christian  and  the 
church  at  large  are  represented  as  a  building, 
and  the  imjjroving  and  perfecting  of  character 
in  either  is  called  edifying  or  building  up. 
This  verse  is  a  practical  exhortation  suggested 
by  the  two  preceding  verses. 

20.  For  meat.  On  account  of  meat  (or 
food).  The  Christian  is  called  the  work  of 
God — sometimes  simply  (Eph.  2:io);  sometimes 
under  the  figure  of  a  field  to  be  tilled;  more 
frequently  under  the  figure  of  a  house  or  tem- 
ple to  be  built,  (i  c.t.3:9;  6:i9.)  In  harmony 
with  this  figure,  the  word  here  translated  de- 
stroy (diflerent  from  the  word  so  translated  in 
ver.  15)  means  to  pull  down  or  take  to  pieces, 
being  the  antithesis  of  edifying  in  ver.  19. 
[The  singular  number,  'destroy'  thou  'not' 
(strive  tliou  not  to  destroy,  present  tense),  re- 
fers back  to  ver.  15,  16.]  All  things  indeed 
are  pure.  All  kinds  of  food  are  lawful  to  be 
Ciiten,  being  clean  in  themselves  (see  ver.  14, 
and  compare  1  Tim.  4  :  3,  4),  but  it  is  wrong  for 
him,  or  there  is  evil  to  him,  who  may  eat  in 
such  a  way  as  to  give  offense  to  his  brother,  or 
to  cause  him  to  do  anything  contrary  to  his 


Ch.  XIV] 


ROMANS. 


289 


21  It  is  good  neither  to  eath  flesh,  nor  to  drink  wine, 
nor  any  thing  whereby  thy  brother  stuiubleth,  or  is 
otfended,  or  is  made  weak. 

22  Hast  thou  faith?  have  it  to  thyself  before  God. 
Happy  is  he  that  condemneth  not  himself  in  that  thing 
which  he  alloweth. 

26  And  he  that  doubteth  is  damned  if  he  eat,  because 
he  eatcth  not  of  faith :  for  whatsoever  is  not  of  faith  is 
sin. 


21  It  is  good  not  to  eat  flesh,  nor  to  drink  wine,  nor  to  do 

22  an//  thin//  whereby  thy  brother  stumbleth.'  The 
faith  which  thou  hast,  have  thou  to  thvself  beforeUod. 
Happy  is  he  that  judgeth  not  himself  in  that  which 

23  he  -approveth.  But  he  that  doubteth  is  condemned 
if  he  eat,  because  /le  eattth.  not  of  faith  ;  and  whatso- 
soever  is  not  of  faith  is  siu.  3 


1  Man;  aucient  authorities  add  or  t<  offended,  or  is  weak 2  Or,  putteth  to  the  tesl 3  Ma3jr  aulliorlties,  some  aDcieat.  ins 

here,  ch.  xvi.  25-27. 


conscience.'  [The  immediately  preceding  and 
succeeding  verses  htive  reference  to  the  strong, 
and  so  here  the  man  who  eateth  through  offense 
(so  as  to  be  an  occtision  of  stumbling)  is  the 
strong  in  faith.  So  De  Wette,  Alford.  Others, 
less  correctly,  intei'pret  it,  in  the  light  of  ver. 
14,  of  the  weak  brother  who,  in  eating,  offends 
his  own  conscience.] 

21.  It  is  good.  In  opposition  to  what  is 
evil  or  wrong,  (vev.  20.)  Neither  to  eat 
flesh.  [The  word  hei-e  used  for  flesh  denotes 
slain  flesh,  in  contrast  with  the  ordinary  word 
for  living  flesh.  On  the  order  of  the  negatives, 
see  at  8:  38.  The  two  verbs  after  stumbleth 
are  omitted  in  the  Revision,  but  are  found  in 
B  D  F  L,  Vulgate,  and  should  not  be  con- 
demned. Nor  (to  do)  anything  whereby, 
etc.  Compare  1  Cor.  8:  13.  We  have  here  a 
most  important  principle  of  action — to  wit,  a 
regard  to  our  influence,  which  will  often  enable 
us  to  decide  as  to  the  right  or  wrong  of  things 
in  themselves,  possibly  indifferent  or  innocent. 
So  far  as  ourselves  are  concerned,  we  may 
safely  and  rightly  indulge  in  certain  practices 
or  habits;  but  when  we  know  or  suspect  that 
such  indulgence  is  hurtful  in  its  influence  on 
others,  it  then  becomes  a  sin  against  God  and 
man.  Under  this  rule  of  action  we  may  deter- 
mine the  rightfulness  or  the  moral  improprietj' 
of  participating  in  the  so-called  "worldly" 
(perhaps  in  themselves  often  innocent)  amuse- 
ments of  our  times.  There  are  certain  habits 
indulged  in  by  some  Christians,  even  by  some 
Christian  ministers,  which  we  cannot  place 
among    the    things    morally    indifferent    and 


innocent.  In  all  these  matters,  we  do  well 
"not  to  please  ourselves,"  but  to  follow  that 
truly  Christ-like  principle  which  Paul  himself 
both  inculcated  and  practiced.  "  Whether 
therefore  ye  eat  or  drink,  or  whatsoever  ye 
do,  do  all  to  the  glory  of  God."] 

23.  Hast  thou  faith— or,  a  full  persuasion 
that  there  is  no  sin  in  eating  certain  meats 
which  thy  brother  regards  as  forbidden  ?  Keep 
that  persuasion  to  thyself;  let  it  be  between 
thee  and  thy  God  ;  do  not  parade  it  before  thy 
brother  in  such  a  way  as  to  shock  his  weak 
pi'ejudices  and  tempt  him  to  sin ;  be  content 
with  the  happiness  of  acting  consistently  with 
thy  principles,  and  be  not  over  anxious  to  make 
thy  brother  see  and  act  as  thou  doest.2 

23.  And  he  that  doubteth.  [See  4:  20, 
the  only  place  in  the  Epistle  where  this  word 
occurs.  The  word  in  the  last  verse,  translated 
judgeth  (Kpivuiv)  in  the  Revised  Version,  occurs 
twice  in  this,  compounded  with  diflerent  prep- 
ositions. The  last  compounded  foi-m  is  in  the 
perfect  has  been  (and  is)  condemned,  lies  under 
condemnation.]  He  is  condemned  who  eats 
what  he  doubts  his  right  to  eat,  because  of  that 
doubt;  for  [rather,  but,  introducing  an  axiom. 
(Alford)],  whatever  a  man  does  while  doubting 
whether  he  has  a  right  to  do  it,  that  is  sin. 
This  is  the  same  principle  which  is  expressed 
in  ver.  14.  The  passage  does  not  mean  what 
Augustine  inferred  from  it,  that  the  best  actions 
of  unbelievers  are  only  "shining  sins."  Yet 
there  is  an  important  moral  principle  here. 
In  every  moral  act  there  are  two  important 
elements  to  be  considei'ed — the  act  itself,  and 


t  The  word  brit,  corresponding  to  the  preceding  ineV 
(indeed),  is  stronger  than  St,  and  makes  this  clause 
"more  strongly  prominent." — (F.) 

2  The  Revisers  insert  a  which  in  the  first  clause,  and 
give  a  slightly  ditferent  rendering  without  altering  the 
meaning.  For  the  word  'thyself  they  have  (rauToi', 
the  contracted  form  of  creauToi'.  In  the  last  sentence  of 
the  verse,  n»j,  with  the  participle, jwrf^riH// (in  Common 
Version,  'condemneth'),  refers  to  a  supposed  genus. 
Happy  is  the  strong  one  who  judges  not  himself,  or  is 


liable  to  no  self-judgment  (Meyer)  in  pursuing  that 
course  which  he  ajjproves  after  examination  and  testing. 
An  Apocryphal  addition  to  Luke  6:  4  (found  in  MS.  D), 
is  adduced  by  Olshausen  as  "  very  highly  instructive  for 
the  understanding  of  this  passage."  It  is  there  told 
that  Jesus  saw  a  man  working  on  the  Sabbath,  and  said 
to  him:  "If  thou  knowest  what  thou  doest,  thou  art 
blessed ;  but  if  thou  knowest  not,  thou  art  accursed, 
and  a  transgressor  of  the  law." — (F.) 


290 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  XV. 


CHAPTER  XV. 


w 


E  then  that  are  strong  ought  to  bear  the  infirmities 
of  the  weak,  and  not  to  i)lease  ourselves. 


1  Now  we  that  are  strong  ought  to  bear  the  infirm- 

2  ities  of  the  weak,  and  not  to  please  ourselves.    Let 


the  state  of  the  actor's  conscience.  In  order 
that  an  act  may  be  wholly  right,  it  must  be 
right  in  both  these  respects;  but  in  order  to  be 
wrong,  it  need  be  faulty  in  only  one  of  them. 
This  principle  is  pithily  expressed  in  the  Latin 
maxim:  "  Bonum  non  oritur,  nisi  ex  omnibus 
causis  integris:  malum  ex  quovis  defectu" — 
"the  right  is  produced  only  by  the  perfection 
of  all  its  parts ;  the  wrong  by  a  defect  in  any 
single  part."  It  would  be  easy  to  quote  from 
uninspired,  and  even  Pagan  moralists,  senti- 
ments more  or  less  parallel  to  this  of  Paul. 
Pliny  says  (Epistle  1:18):  "Quod  dubitas,  ne 
feceris" — "what  you  are  in  doubt  about  you 
must  not  do.'  Cicero  less  tersely  says  :  "Bene 
praecipiunt,  qui  vetant  quicquam  agere,  quod 
dubitas  an  aequum  sit  an  iniquum"  ("De 
Officiis"  1 :  9) — "They  teach  well  who  forbid 
us  to  do  anything  about  which  we  are  not  sure 
whether  it  is  just  or  unjust."  There  is  a  Rab- 
binical maxim  which  coincides  more  closely 
still  with  the  language  of  Paul:  "  Quicquid 
utrum  licitum  sit  an  illicitum  tu  nescis,  id  tibi 
illicitum  est" — "Concerning  whatever  thing 
you  do  not  know,  whether  it  is  lawful  or  un- 
lawful, that  thing  is  unlawful /or  you."  That 
was  an  excellent  resolution  of  Jonathan  Ed- 
wards, expressed  with  the  precision  of  a  meta- 
physician, as  well  as  formed  with  the  piety  of  a 
saint :  "  Resolved  never  to  do  any  action  about 
the  lawfulness  of  which  I  am  so  doubtful  at  the 
time  that  I  resolve  to  inquire  afterward,  unless 
I  am  equally  doubtful  whether  it  is  lawful  to 
omit  it."  [The  preceding  note  merits  deep 
consideration ;  for  the  language  of  Paul  in  this 
verse  has  been  often  misunderstood— :;??'s<,  by 
assuming  that  "faith"  here  means  "trust  in 
Christ,"  and  secondly,  by  assuming  that  what- 
soever is  "of  faith"  is  holy,  because  whatsoever 
is  "  not  of  faith  "  is  sinful.  The  word  "faith  " 
signifies  in  this  place  belief  or  conviction— 
namely,  belief  or  conviction  that  a  given 
act  is  lawful  and  right  before  God ;  and  the 
teaching  of  the  apostle,  as  explained  above, 
is  clearly  this — that  it  is  sinful  for  any  Chris- 
tian to  perform  an  act  which  he  does  not  fully 
believe  to  be  right,  but  not  that  it  is  sinful 
for  him  to  perform  an  act  without  trust  in 
Christ  (though  this  is  doubtless  true),  and  still 


less,  that  every  act  which  is  performed  with 
trust  in  Christ  is,  therefore,  sinless.  Trust  in 
Christ  does  not  render  a  man  holy  in  heart  and 
life ;  it  is  rather  a  confession  that  he  is  not  holy. 
But  the  word  'faith,'  as  Dr.  Arnold  clearly 
shows,  does  not  here  mean  trust  in  Christ. — 
(A.  H.)] 

[In  some  manuscripts,  but  not  the  most  im- 
portant, the  final  doxology  (i6: 25-27)  occurs  here 
after  ver.  23.  Some  suppose  that  this  verse 
ended  a  church  section,  or  lesson  for  public 
reading,  and  the  doxology  was  appended  to 
form  a  suitable  close.  Certainly  the  doxology, 
"  now  to  him  that  isof  power  to  stablish  you," 
comes  in  appropriately  here,  where  the  weak 
in  faith  are  spoken  of.  But,  as  Westcott  and 
Hort  affirm,  "the  cause  of  its  insertion  here 
cannot  be  known  with  certainty."  Only  a 
very  few  skeptical  writers  have  doubted  the 
genuineness  of  the  two  chapters  which  follow.] 


Ch.  15  :  Contimiation  of  the  subject  of  chap- 
ter 14  to  ver.  13  ["  Christ  an  example  of  bear- 
ing with  the  weak."  (Olshausen.)  Thence  to 
ver.  33  are  personal  explanations,  embracing 
an  apology,  ver.  14-21,  and  notice  of  journeys, 
ver.  22-33.] 

1.  We  then  that  are  strong  ought  to 
bear  the  infirmities  of  the  weak.  Observe 
that  here,  as  in  14 :  4,  the  apostle  takes  the  part 
of  the  'strong'  as  being  theoretically  right, 
and  thus  adds  to  the  strength  of  his  plea  for 
the  weak.  The  word  translated  'infirmities' 
is  not  used  elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament, 
but  is  derived  from  the  word  rendered  'weak,' 
as  in  14 :  4.  [The  verb  '  ought '  is  strongly  em- 
phatic by  position,  standing  at  the  opening  of 
the  sentence.  The  words  for  '  strong '  and 
'  weak '  correspond  in  form  to  our  able  and  un- 
able. We  who  are  able  to  carry  the  infirmities 
of  the  weak  (unable)  ought  so  to  do.  We  are 
not  only  to  bear  with  their  weaknesses,  but  to 
carry  them  as  if  our  own — a  requirement  which 
necessitates  the  putting  of  ourselves  in  the  place 
of  the  weak.  The  apostle  also  counselled  the 
Galatian  Christians,  "  Bear  ye  one  another's 
burdens,  and  so  fulfil  the  law  of  Christ." 
(Gal.  6:2.)  No  Christian  can  so  dissociate  him- 
self from  others  that  he  can  live  for  himself 


Ch.  XV.] 


ROMANS. 


291 


2  Let  every  one  of  us  please  his  neighbour  for  his  j 
good  to  edification. 

3  For  even  Christ  pleased  not  himself;  but,  as  it  is 
written,  The  reproaches  of  them  that  reproached  thee 
fell  on  nie. 

4  For  whatsoever  things  were  written  aforetime  were 
written  for  our  learning,  that  we  through  patience  and 
comfort  of  the  Scriptures  might  have  hope. 


each  one  of  us  please  his  neighbour  for  that  which  is 

3  good.untoedifying.     For  Christ  also  pleased  not  him- 
self; but,  as  ii  is  written.  The  reproaches  of  them 

4  that  reproached  thee  fell  upon  me.    For  whatsoever 
things  were  written  aforetime  were  written  for  our 


alone.  And  in  all  our  relations  of  responsi- 
bility, in  all  our  life's  plans,  and  in  all  our 
actions,  the  ought  idea  should,  as  in  our  text, 
have  the  foremost,  the  emphatic  place.]  And 
not  to  please  ourselves.  [This  pleasing  of 
one's  self  seems,  it  must  be  confessed,  to  be  in 
general  the  guiding  principle  of  human  action. 
Observe  the  use  of  the  dependent  negative 
here  in  contrast  with  the  use  of  the  direct  nega- 
tive in  the  narrative  sentence  of  ver.  3,  'pleased 
not  himself  Notice  also  the  third  person  of 
the  reflexive  pronoun  as  here  used  for  the  first.] 
This  clause  points  out  the  root  of  those  rash 
judgments  and  alienations  of  feeling  among 
brethren,  which  the  apostle  is  earnestly  en- 
deavoring to  forestall.  It  is  the  want  of  that 
self-denying  love,  of  which  our  Lord  himself 
was  the  bright  example  (ver.  3),  and  which 
Paul  also  exemplified  in  an  eminent  degree. 

(1  Cor.  8:  13;  9:  22;  10:33.)       "Wc    shoW  OUr  Strength, 

not  by  despising,  but  by  tolerating,  the  infirmi- 
ties of  the  weak,  and  our  knowledge  and  en- 
larged views  by  bearing  with  the  ignorance 
and  narrow  prejudices  of  others.  ["  Both  par- 
ties are  to  receive  each  other  in  brotherly  love 
(15:  7),  without  the  stronger  subjecting  the  scru- 
ples of  the  weaker  to  his  criticism.  But  the 
stronger  has  thus  a  special  duty  of  love  to  dis- 
charge, for  to  him  alone  is  the  matter  in  dis- 
pute a  matter  of  indifference."     (Weiss.)] 

2.  Let  everyone  of  us  please  his  neigh- 
bour for  his  good  to  edification.  We  have 
here  an  excellent  rule  of  Christian  charity, 
well  guarded.  The  wish  to  please  our  neigh- 
bor is  a  praiseworthy  feeling,  but  we  are  to 
indulge  it  according  to  these  two  rules,  namely, 
in  ways  which  are  right  in  the  sight  of  God, 
and  which  tend  to  our  neighbor's  'edification' 
— his  building  up  in  righteousness  and  Chris- 
tian character.  ['  Edification '  is  a  species  under 
the  genus,  ^'ooc?.  (Bengel.)  Of  the  two  prepo- 
sitions in  the  original,  the  former  seems  to  de- 
note the  more  immediate,  the  latter  the  more 
ultimate  purpose  or  result  of  the  action.  See 
Ellicott  on  Eph.  4:  12.  The  word  for  'neigh- 
bor' is  an  adverb,  and  properly  means  the  one 
(being)  near.     Observe  that  there  is  a  wrong 


way  of  pleasing  our  neighbors  as  well  as  a 
right  one.  See  Gal.  1 :  10;  1  Thess.  2:  4.  We 
must  please  him  or  strive  to  please  him,  only 
as  it  will  be  for  his  good,  only,  too,  in  obedi- 
ence to  the  divine  will.] 

3.  The  exhortations  in  the  two  preceding 
verses  are  now  enforced  by  the  example  of 
Christ.  For  even  Christ,  though  so  much 
above  the  strongest  of  us,  pleased  not  him- 
self;  but  [the  reverse  of  this  is  true.  This  is 
the  great  constraining  motive  for  like  action  in 
us.  Observe  here  the  use  of  the  objective  neg- 
ative where  a  fact  is  stated.  The  word  Christ, 
standing  in  such  a  connection  as  this,  is  gener- 
ally used  by  Paul  as  a  proper  name  and  with- 
out the  article.  Yet  again  in  ver.  7  it  has  the 
article,  and  so  in  1  Cor.  1:  13;  10:  4;  11 :  3, 
etc.,  in  all  which  cases  it  is  used  in  the  nomina- 
tive. As  it  is  written,  in  Ps.  69:  9.  Winer 
remarks  that  the  apostle,  instead  of  saying,  but 
to  please  God,  he  submitted  to  the  most  cruel 
reproaches,  changes  the  construction  by  pro- 
ceeding with  a  quotation  from  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. The  quotation  is  verbatim  from  the 
LXX.  68 :  9.  Those  that  reproached  thee. 
Owing  to  its  connection  with  a  verb  in  the  past 
tense,  the  present  participle,  those  reproaching 
thee,  may  be  rendered  as  in  the  past  tense 
'Thee'  here  refers  to  God.  Though  Christ  in 
one  sense  pleased  not  himself  ("otherwise  he 
would  have  abstained  from  taking  these  suffer- 
ings on  himself;  compare  Heb.  12:  2,  3;  Phil. 
2:  6-8."  Meyer),  yet  he  was  pleased  to  obey 
the  will  of  God  and  to  say,  "  Lo  I  come." 
(Heb.  10:  7;  compare  Matt.  20:  28;  John  4: 
34.)]  For  the  benefit  and  salvation  of  men 
Christ  willingly  suffered  reproach  from  the 
enemies  of  God.  The  Messianic  character  of 
the  psalin  quoted  from  is  evident  from  John  2 : 
17 ;  15 :  25 ;  19 :  28 ;  Acts  1 :  20. 

4.  For  whatsoever  things.  [Westcott 
and  Hort  read:  "All  things  whatsoever." 
"The  apostle  both  justifies  the  above  citation 
and  prepares  the  way  for  the  subject  to  be  next 
introduced."  (Alford.)  We  see  here  the  value 
which  such  inspired  writers  as  Paul  placed  on 
all    the  Old    Testament  Scriptures.]      Were 


292 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  XV. 


5  N  w  the  God  of  patience  and  consolation  grant  you 
to  be  liliemiuded  one  toward  another  according  to 
Christ  Jesus: 

6  That  ye  may  with  one  mind  and  one  mouth  glorify 
God,  even  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

7  Wherefore  receive  ye  one  another,  as  Christ  also 
received  us,  to  the  glory  of  God. 


learning,  that  through  '  patience  and  through  com- 

5  fort  of  tne  scriptures  we  might  have  hope.  Now  the 
God  of  1  patience  and  of  comfort  grant  you  to  be  of 
the  same  mind  one  with  another  according  to  Christ 

6  Jesus  :  that  with  one  accord  ye  may  with  one  mouth 
glorify   the    -Hod.  and   Father  of   our  Lord  Jesus 

7  Christ.    Wherefore  receive  ye  one  another,  even  as 

8  Christ  also  received  ^you,  to  the  glory  of  God.    For 


1  Or,  stedfaatnesa 2  Or,  God  and  the  Father .3  Some  ancient  authorities  read  U8. 


written  for  our  learning  (or,  histricction) 
that  we  through  patience  and  comfort  of 
the  Scriptures  might  have  hope.  This  was 
the  general  object  of  all,  and  more  specifically, 
with  reference  to  the  present  subject,  to  con- 
tribute to  our  patience  and  comfort.  The 
Scriptures  teach  us  '  patience '  in  bearing  the 
infirmities  of  others,  and  give  us  '  comfort ' 
under  the  slight  inconvenience  which  it  may 
cost  us  to  bear  them;  and  in  general  'the 
Scriptures '  are  the  source  of  '  patience  and 
comfort'  by  their  precepts,  their  examples,  | 
their  promises,  and  by  the  'hope'  of  eternal  i 
life.  [The  comfort  of  the  Scriptures  is  thus  i 
allied,  not  with  apathy,  but  with  endurance. 
The  connection  of  these  two  words  in  the  fol- 
lowing verse  indicates  a  similar  close  connec- 
tion here — that  is,  they  are  both  to  be  connected 
witli  'the  Scriptures.'  The  genitive  is  that  of 
source  or  authorship.  The  '  hope '  which  we 
may  have  is  commonly  regarded  as  the  Chris- 
tian's special  hope,  the  hope  of  glory.  (5:  12.) 
There  are  but  two  things  we  can  carry  away 
with  us  when  we  leave  this  world :  the  one  is 
the  hope  we  may  have  in  Jesus  of  forgiveness 
and  of  the  life  eternal ;  the  other  is  the  heavy 
burden  of  unrepented  and  unforgiven  sin.] 

5,  6.  The  apostle,  recognizing  God  as  the 
source  of  patience  and  consolation  (com- 
fort), as  '  the  Scriptures '  are  the  means,  praj^s 
that  he  may  grant  them  harmony  of  feeling 
to  be  like  minded  [to  mind  the  same  things, 
as  in  12:  16]  among  themselves  (which,  rather 
than  exact  unanimity  of  opinion,  is  the  mean- 
ing of  'like  minded'  here),  according  to  (the 
will  and  example  of)  Christ  Jesus,  our  per- 
fect pattern ;  so  that  they,  with  one  accord  or 
unanimously,  Avith  (literallj',  in)  one  mind 
and  one  mouth  (with  one  inward  spirit  and 
one  outward  utterance)  may  glorify  God, 
even  the  Father  (or,  the  God  and  Father) 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  A  touching 
prayer,  or,  rather,  devout  wish,  with  which  to 
seal  and  enforce  the  preceding  admonitions. 
[How  strongly  the  Saviour  desired  the  oneness 
of  his  people  may  be  seen  in  John  17 :  21.     De 


Wette  and  Meyer  prefer  the  rendering,  '  even 
the  Father,'  which  is  found  in  our  Common 
Version,  though  the  rendering  of  the  Kevised 
Version,  the  God  and  FatJier^  is  theologically 
and  grammatically  admissible.  See  Eph.  1 : 
17,  also  Matt.  27:  46;  John  20:  17.] 

7.  Wherefore,  on  which  account — namely, 
that  the  wish  just  expressed  may  be  accom- 
plished. Receive  ye  one  another  [or, 
rather,  take  to  yourselves  (implying  more  active 
effort)  as  Christian  brethren,  see  14:  1]  both 
Jewish  and  Gentile  believers,  both  the  strong 
in  faith  and  the  weak.  As  Christ  also  re- 
ceived us  (or,  you).  'As'  maybe  equivalent 
to  since  here,  and  so  fee  referred  to  the  fact 
that  Christ  received  us  as  a  reason  why  we 
should  receive  one  another  [compare  14:  3, 
'  for  God  hath  received  him  '] ;  or  it  may  refer 
to  the  ynanner  in  which  Christ  received  us,  as 
the  rule  to  teach  us  how  we  should  receive 
another.  The  word  is  commonly  taken  in  the 
former  sense  in  this  passage ;  but  the  manner 
in  which  the  word  '  also '  is  connected  with  it — ■ 
the  two  being,  in  fact,  joined  together,  making 
one  compound  word  in  the  Greek — would  jus- 
tify the  translation,  even  as  Chj'ist  also  received 
us,  which  would  seem  rather  to  suggest  the  way 
of  receiving,  as  well  as  the  reason  for  it.  We 
must  receive  those  whom  Christ  receives,  be- 
caus'e  he  receives  them,  and  as  he  receives 
them.  We  must  not  set  any  limits  to  our 
brotherly  love,  which  Christ  has  not  set;  and 
and  we  must  not  make  any  conditions  of  church 
membership  which  he  has  not  made ;  nor  must 
we  ignore,  or  neglect  to  insist  upon  any  that  he 
has  made.  The  glory  of  God  was  his  end 
in  forming  the  rules  of  his  kingdom  ;  and  the 
glorifying  God,  as  in  ver.  9,  should  be  ours  in 
putting  those  rules  in  practice.  We  may  sum 
up  all  in  these  three  fundamental  principles: 

1.  Christ  is  the  only  King  and  Lawgiver  in 
his  church.  2.  The  Scriptures  are  the  only 
binding  rule  of  faith  and  practice  for  his  people 
in  religious  matters.  3.  God's  glory  should  be 
the  supreme  end  in  all  Christian  action,  whether 
private  or  ecclesiastical. 


Ch.  XV.] 


ROMANS. 


293 


8  Now  I  say  that  Jesus  Christ  was  a  minister  of  the 
circumcision  for  the  truth  of  Uod,  to  contirm  the 
promises  made  unto  the  fathers: 

9  And  that  the  Gentiles  might  glorify  God  for  his 
mercy;  as  it  is  written,  For  this  cause  I  will  confess  to 
thee  among  the  Gentiles,  and  sing  unto  thy  name. 

10  And  again  he  saith,  Rejoice,  ye  Gentiles,  with  his 
people. 

11  And  again,  Praise  the  Lord,  all  ye  Gentiles;  and 
laud  him,  all  ye  people. 


I  say,  that  Christ  hatt  been  made  a  minister  of  the 
circumcision  for  the  truth  of  God,  that  he  might 
9  contirm  the  promises  r/iven  unto  the  fathers,  and  that 
the  Gentiles  might  glorify  God  for  his  mercy  ;  as  it  is 
written, 

Therefore  will  I  i  give  praise  unto  thee  among 

the  Gentiles, 
And  sing  unto  thy  name. 

10  And  again  he  saith, 

Rejoice,  ye  Gentiles,  with  his  people. 

11  And  again. 

Praise  the  Lord,  all  ye  Gentiles  ; 
And  let  all  the  peoples  praise  him. 


1  Or,  con/esa. 


8,  9.  By  the  quotations  in  the  ninth  and 
three  following  verses,  the  apostle  proves  that 
God's  purpose  from  the  beginning  was  to  com- 
prehend both  Jews  and  Gentiles  in  the  wide 
embrace  of  his  mercy,  through  the  Messiah ; 
and  so  he  adds  confirmation  to  the  force  of  his 
exhortation  to  them  to  receive  one  another, 
and  to  the  assurance  that  their  doing  so  will 
redound  to  the  glory  of  God.  [Now  I  say. 
Instead  of  this  phrase,  most  MSS.  read  for, 
which  denotes  a  reason  for  the  exhortation  just 
given.  Meyer  renders:  "/  Dieayi,  namely, ^^ 
thus  making  what  follows  to  be  explanatory 
of  the  preceding.]  A  minister  of  the  cir- 
cumcision. The  apostle  shows  his  Jewish 
brethren  that  he  was  not  unmindful  of  a  certain 
temporal  priority  of  claim  on  their  part,  to  the 
blessings  of  the  Messianic  kingdom,  according 
to  such  passages  as  Matt.  15  :  26;  Luke  24:  47; 
John  4:  22.  [The  word  minister,  or  servant 
(&iaKovo<:),  whence  our  deacon,  occurs  elsewhere 
in  this  Epistle.  See  13:  4  (twice)  and  16:  1. 
Our  Saviour  said  that  he  came  to  7ni/iister  unto 
{&iaKQvy\uai.)  by  giving  his  life  a  ransom  for 
many.  (Matt. 20:28.)  But  his  earthly  service 
was  mainly  for  the  circumcision,  the  Jews,  the 
lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel.  Possibly  the 
apostle  may  have  made  this  concession  to  the 
Jews  in  order  to  humble  the  pride  of  the 
'strong'  Gentile  Christians.  (De  "Wette.) 
Was — the  verb  in  the  original  is  in  the  per- 
fect, meaning,  literally,  has  become,  and  de- 
notes a  past  event,  but  still  continuing  in  its 
effects.]  For  the  truth  of  God — that  is, 
to  establish  it  by  fulfilling  the  Messianic  proph- 
ecies or  promises  made  unto  the  fathers. 
And  that  the  Gentiles  might  glorify  God 
for  his  mercy  [as  the  Jews  for  his  truthful- 
ness, his  fidelity  to  his  promises.  Noyes  makes 
the  verb  'glorify'  dependent  on  'I  say,'  and 
gives  this  rendering:  "(I  say)  that  the  Gentiles 
glorified  God  for  his  mercy."     More  probably 


this  verb  is  co-ordinate  with  the  verb  confirm, 
and  thus  the  glorifying  God  by  the  Gentiles  is 
represented  as  "the  remote  design  of  Christ's 
becoming  a  minister  of  the  circumcision." 
Meyer  says:  "The  connection  of  the  Jewish 
Christians  with  Christ  appears  as  the  fulfill- 
ment of  their  theocratic  claim  ;  but  that  of  the 
Gentile  Christians  as  the  enjoyment  of  grace, 
a  distinction  so  set  forth  .  .  .  designedly  and 
ingeniously,  in  order  to  suggest  to  the  Gentile 
Christians  greater  esteem  for  their  weaker 
Jewish  brethren."]  It  is  true  that  there  were 
promises  of  salvation  for  the  Gentiles  in  the 
Old  Testament,  and  that  some  of  these  prom- 
ises were  addressed  directly  to  the  Gentiles,  as 
was  true  of  the  implied  promises  in  ver.  10, 
11 ;  yet,  as  the  prophets  spoke  and  wrote  im- 
mediately and  chiefly  to  and  for  the  Jews,  the 
truth  of  God  could  not  be  said  to  be  pledged 
to  the  former  as  directly  and  fully  as  to  the 
latter.  There  was  a  formal  covenant  in  the 
latter  case,  which  there  Avas  not  in  the  former; 
and  this  distinction  is  often  recognized  in  the 
Scriptures  as  it  is  here.  The  quotation  in  ver. 
9  is  from  Ps.  18:  49  [and,  save  the  omission  of 
the  word  Lord,  exactly  accords  with  the 
LXX.]  The  words  are  put  into  the  mouth  of 
the  Psalmist;  but  David  here  speaks  as  a  type 
of  Christ.  [Philippi  supposes  the  person  offer- 
ing praise  may  be  "any  messenger  of  salvation 
to  the  Gentile  world."] 

10,  11,  13.  And  again  he  saith,  or,  it 
saith — that  is,  the  Scripture  [which  is  easily 
understood  from  the  words  'it  is  written'  in 
the  preceding  verse].  Rejoice,  ye  Gentiles, 
with  his  people.  These  words  are  from 
Deut.  32:43  [and  exactly  follow  the  LXX.]. 
In  the  original  Hebrew,  as  the  English  inti- 
mates by  italics,  there  is  nothing  (save  in  one 
MS.,  Codex  146)  to  answer  to  the  preposition 
'with.'  Literally  it  reads :  "  Rejoice,  ye  Gen- 
tiles, his  people."     Rejoice,  ye  nations,  for  you, 


294 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  XV. 


12  And  again,  Esaias  saith,  There  shall  be  a  root  of 
Jesse,  and  he  that  shall  rise  to  reign  over  the  Gentiles  ; 
in  him  shall  the  Gentiles  trust. 

13  Now  the  God  of  hope  till  you  with  all  joy  and 
peace  in  believing,  that  ye  may  abound  in  hope,  through 
the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

14  And    I    myself  also   am  persuaded  of  you,  my 


12  And  again,  Isaiah  saith. 

There  shall  be  the  root  of  .T esse. 

And  he  that  ariseth  to  rule  over  the  Gentiles  ; 

On  him  shall  the  Gentiles  hope. 

13  Now  the  God  of  hope  fill  you  with  all  joy  and  peace 
in  believing,  that  ye  may  abound  in  hope,  in  the 
power  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

14  And  1  myself  also  am  persuaded  of  you,  my  brethren, 


too,  have  become  his  people.     And  again — in 

still  another  place.  This  is  from  Ps.  117  :  1 
[and  nearly  accords  with  the  LXX.,  116:1]. 
A  double  exhortation  to  praise  the  Lord,  ad- 
dressed first  to  all  nations,  and  secondly,  to  all 
peoples  (for  this  word  is  in  the  plural  number 
as  well  as  the  other).  The  two  verbs  differ  in 
the  Hebrew,  as  well  as  in  the  English,  like  the 
two  nouns;  but  in  both  cases  and  in  both  lan- 
guages they  are  substantially  synonymous,  the 
duplication  being  for  the  sake  of  emphasis  and 
the  difference  for  the  sake  of  variety.  [The 
verbs,  though  the  same  in  the  Greek  (save  that 
the  latter  is  a  compound),  are  in  different 
tenses,  the  present  and  the  aorist  (the  latter  in 
the  Revision  being  in  the  third  person  impera- 
tive instead  of  the  .second),  j'et  the  distinction 
in  the  meaning  of  these  tenses  seems  here  to  be 
disregarded.]  And  again,  Esaias  saith. 
This  is  from  Isa.  11:10  [and  accords  mainly 
with  the  LXX.,  while  it  varies  considerably 
from  the  Hebrew.  Davidson  says:  "The 
apostle.,  as  in  many  other  places,  gives  the 
sense  v/ithout  the  exact  words"].  A  root  of 
Jesse  means  here  an  offspring  of  Jesse,  or  a 
root  shoot,  as  David  was,  and  through  David 
the  Mes.siah,  who  was  to  reign  over  Jews  and 
Gentiles  with  a  wider  and  more  permanent 
reign  than  David's  was;  and  in  him  [literally, 
on  whan,  as  a  foundation]  shall  the  Gentiles 
trust,  or  hope,  as  it  should  be  rendered  here, 
to  agree  with  the  corresponding  noun  in  the 
next  verse.  ["The  Gentiles  formerly  had  no 
hope.  See  Eph.  2:12."  (Bengel.)]  It  should 
be  noticed  that  in  these  confirmatory  citations 
[adduced  one  after  another  as  with  deepest 
emotion]  the  apostle  quotes  from  the  law 
(ver.  10),  the  prophets  (ver.  12),  and  the  Psalms 
(ver.  9,  u),  thus  bringing  into  the  service  of  his 
argument  all  the  parts  of  the  threefold  division 
of  the  Old  Testament  common  among  the 
Jews,  and  recognized  by  our  Lord  in  Luke 
24  :  44.  [Query  :  Is  there  for  Christian  teach- 
ers and  preachers  any  better  way  of  viewing 
and  of  using  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures 
than  that  which  Christ  and  his  apostles  prac- 
ticed?   See  ver.  4.] 


13.  NoAV  the  God  of  hope.    [Now  may  the 

God  who  gives  the  hope  of  eternal  glory,  fill 
you  with  all  (with  highest,  with  all  possible) 
joy  and  peace  in  believing— without  which 
'believing,'  or  faith,  there  could  be  no  joy  or 
peace,  and  without  which  joy  and  peace,  faith 
would  be  fruitless  (Meyer) — in  ordor  that  ye 
may  abound  in  hope,  through  (in  virtue 
of)  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  who 
dwell eth  and  worketh  in  you.  What  large 
provision  God — the  God  of  constancy,  of  con- 
solation, and  of  hope — has  made  that  we,  in  the 
midst  of  earthly  cares  and  sorrows,  and  with 
all  our  inward  trials,  may  yet  have  hope  and 
peace  and  joy — have  them,  too,  in  their  highest 
measure,  and  have  them  in  us  continually,  even 
asa  well  of  water  springing  up,  overflowing,  and 
refreshing  the  soul  unto  everlasting  life !  It  is 
a  characteristic  of  Paul  that  he  insists  so  much 
upon  the  Christian's  abounding  in  grace  and 
in  every  good  work,  and  nothing  could  be 
more  characteristically  Pauline  than  this  entire 
passage.  (Boise.)]  This  verse  forms  an  ap- 
propriate and  beautiful  close  to  the  practical 
and  hortatory  part  of  the  Epistle.  The  devout 
wish  which  Paul  expresses  is  rich  in  the  bless- 
ings of  religious  experience.  Notice  in  respect 
to  these  blessings  the  excellence  of  their  nature, 
the  fullness  of  their  measure,  and  the  divine 
perfection  of  their  source.  How  extravagant 
this  wish  would  be  if  addressed  to  any  but 
regenerate  persons!  What  do  any  others  know 
of  fullness  of  joy  and  peace  in  believing,  and  of 
the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost? 
IV.  Personal.  (Ch.  15  :  14-16:  23.) 
The  fourth  division  of  the  Epistle  we  have 
named  Personal,  because  in  it  the  apostle  indi- 
cates the  motives  and  feelings  that  prompted 
him  to  write.  (i5:i4-33.)  In  the  first  place,  he 
excuses  his  boldness,     (ver.  u-is.) 

14.  And  I  myself.  ["Notwithstanding 
my  exhortations."  (De  Wette. )  Also  am 
persuaded.  Compare  8:38;  14:14.  The 
particle  translated  'and'  is  transitional, "lead- 
ing over  to  the  concluding  portion  of  the 
Epistle."  (Meyer.)]  This  emi)hatic  assertion 
of  his  own  persuasion  in  regard  to  their  Chris- 


Ch.  XV.] 


ROMANS. 


295 


brethren,  that  ye  also  are  full  of  goodness,  filled  with  all 
knowledge,  able  also  to  admonish  one  another. 

15  Nevertheless,  brethren,  1  have  written  the  more 
boldly  nntoyou  in  some  sort,  as  puttiiic  you  in  mind, 
because  of  the  grace  that  is  given  to  me  oftjod, 

16  That  I  should  be  the  minister  of  Jesus  Christ  to 
the  (ientiles,  ministering  the  gospel  of  God,  that  the 
offering  up  of  (be  Gentiles  might  be  acceptable,  being 
sanctified  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 


that  ye  yourselves  are  full  of  goodness,  filled  with  all 
15  knowledge,  able  also  to  admonish  one  another.  But 
1  write  the  more  boldly  unto  you  in  some  measure, 
as  putting  you  again  in  remembrance,  because  of  the 
IC  grace  that  was  given  me  of  (iod,  that  I  should  be  a 
minister  of  Christ  .lesus  unto  the  Gentiles, '  minister- 
ing the  gosjiel  of  (jod,  that  the  ofl'ering  up  of  the 
Gentiles  might  be  made  acceptable,  being  sanctified 


1  Gr.  ministering  in  i 


tian  character  may,  perhaps,  have  tacit  refer- 
ence to  the  high  reputation  which  they  enjoyed 
in  the  general  judgment  of  mankind.  See  1 :  8. 
The  expressions  full  of  goodness,  filled  with 
all  knowledge,  are  not  to  be  taken  in  their 
highest  possible  sense,  but  in  a  sober  sense, 
sincere,  and  without  flattery,  and  so  taken  thej' 
are  a  strong  commendation  of  the  disciples  at 
Eome.  The  apostle  evidently  regarded  them, 
as  a  whole,  as  persons  of  great  Christian  excel- 
lence, and  there  is  no  reason  why  we  should 
regard  them  otherwise.  Able  also  to  ad- 
monish one  another,  and  therefore  not 
standing  in  special  need  of  admonition  from 
me  or  from  others.  Observe  the  qualifications 
needed  for  mutual  admonition — large  attain- 
ments in  goodness  and  knowledge.  [It  requires 
quite  as  much  wisdom  and  grace  to  give. ad- 
monition properly  as  to  receive  it.] 

15.  I  have  written  [properh',  /  tvrote. 
Some  regard  this  as  the  "epistolary  aorist," 
the  past  tense  being  u.sed  by  the  writer  instead 
of  the  present,  because  to  the  receiver  the  time 
of  writing  would  be  as  pa.st.  Others  think  the 
past  tense  was  employed  here,  because  the 
Epistle  was  regarded  as  brought  to  a  con- 
clusion. The  more  boldly — "than  from 
your  Christian  attainment  was  neces.sary." 
(Winer.)]  The  expression  in  some  sort — 
literallj',  inpart — qualifies  the  words  havewrit- 
ten  the  more  boldly,  and  intimates  that  the 
bolditess  with  which  he  has  written  (notwith- 
standing his  good  opinion  of  therrL,  neverthe- 
less) was  limited  to  cevi&m parts  of  the  Epistle ; 
such,  perhaps,  as  6:  12-19;  11:  17-25;  13:  14. 
Putting  yoQ  in  mind,  recalling  to  your 
memory,  not  as  if  I  was  giving  some  ideas  or 
instructions  of  which  you  were  altogether  igno- 
rant. Because  of  the  grace — my  apostolic 
office  was  the  ground  and  reason  of  my  boldness. 
[In  12:  3,  we  have:  "  through  (b3' means  of )  the 
grace.]"  We  have  here  an  admirable  combi- 
nation of  humility,  courtesy,  and  dignity.  [The 
grace  referred  to  was  given  to  Paul  from  God, 
through  the  mediate  agency  of  Christ,     (i:  5.) 


By  reas(tn  of  this  abundant  grace  conferred  on 
the  apostle,  and  from  the  fact  that  he  spoke  and 
wrote  "by  revelation  of  Jesus  Christ"  (i6:  25; 
Gal.  1:  12;  Eph.  3: 2, 3),  his  Epistles  are  to  be  re- 
ceived as  something  higher  than  merely  human 
i  compositions,  even  as  a  message  from  God,  or 
'gospel  of  God.'  If  our  advanced  thinkers 
have  had  more  revealed  to  them  from  heaven, 
and  if  they  have  more  of  God-given  grace  than 
Paul  had,  his  utterances  may  well  be  made  to 
give  place  to  their  improved  theologic  formu- 
las, or,  nebulous  platitudes.] 

16.  That  I  should  be  the  minister  of 
Jesus  Christ  to  the  Gentiles.  This  explains 
:  what  he  means  hy  the  grace  given  to  him  of 
j  God.  It  was  the  favor  of  being  called  to  be 
I  the  apostle  of  the  Gentiles.  He  elsewhere 
speaks  very  emphatically  of  this  calling  as  a 
signal  favor  from  God.  (Eph.  3:8.)  The  words 
translated  yninister  and  7ninistering  {Kenovpyov 
and  upovpyovvTa),  though  not  having  the  same 
etymological  relation  to  each  other  which  the 
English  words  have,  are  yet  alike  in  this,  that 
both  are  based  on  the  figurative  representation 
of  a  priestly  service.  [On  the  word  minister, 
one  who  ministers  or  serves  in  a  public  capacity, 
see  13:  6.  The  verb  occurs  in  15:  27;  Acts 
13:  2;  Heb.  10:  11.  The  word  for  'minister- 
ing' occurs  only  here.  This  sacrifical  service 
is  not  to  make  an  otfering  of  the  gospel,  but  to 
do  holy  service  in  the  gospel,  by  means  of 
which  the  ofl^ering  (of  the  Gentiles)  is  pre- 
parcvl.  (Cremer. )  What  an  honor  God  con- 
I  ferred  on  the  persecuting  Saul  of  Tarsus,  that 
he  should  be  appointed  an  apostle  and  a  priest 
to  the  Gentile  world  to  prepare  and  present 
them  as  an  offering  to  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ !] 
This  is  believed  to  be  the  only  passage  where  a 
word  implying  a  priestly  character  or  action 
is  used,  even  figuratively',  in  reference  to  an 
apostle.  The  New  Testament  carefully  abstains 
from  applying  the  word,  priest  to  an  apostle  or 
preacher  of  the  gospel.  Christ  is  the  Priest  of 
the  New  Dispensation  ;  he  alone  offers  sacrifice 
in  the  strict  sense  of  the  word.    (Heb.  8;  3.)  The 


296 


KOxMANS. 


[Ch.  XV. 


17  1  have  therefore  whereof  I  may  glory  through 
Jesus  Christ  in  those  things  which  pertain  to  God. 

18  For  I  will  not  dare  to  speak  of  any  of  those  things 
which  Christ  hath  not  wrought  by  me,  to  make  the 
Gentiles  obedient,  by  word  and  deed, 

19  Through  mighty  signs  and  wonders,  by  the  power 


17  by  the  Holy  Spirit.     I  have  therefore  my  glorying  In 

18  Christ  Jesus  in  things  pertaining  to  God.  For  I  will 
not  dare  to  speak  of  any  i  things  save  those  which 
Christ  wrought  through  me,  for  the  obedience  of  the 

19  Gentiles,  by  word  and  deed,  in  the  power  of  signs 
and  wonders,  in  the  power  of  2  the  Holy  Spirit ;  so 


1  Gr.  of  those  things  which  Christ  wrought  not  through  me  2  Many  ancient  authorities  read  the  Spirit  of  God.    One  reads  the  Spirit 


offering  up  of  the  Gentiles.  This  is  what 
is  called  by  the  grammarians  the  genitive  of 
apposition.  The  Gentiles  are  the  oifering.  [This 
'offering  up,'  or,  simply,  offering  (irpouiftopa), 
'of  the  Gentiles,'  properly  denotes  a  bloodless 
sacrifice.  Paul's  priestly  service  in  preaching 
to  the  Gentiles  was  in  order  that  the  offering 
of  the  Gentiles  might  be  well-pleasing,  being 
sanctified  in  the  element  of  the  Holy  Spirit's 
influence.  This  last  clause  "forms  an  anti- 
thesis to  the  external  consecration  of  the  Old 
Testament  sacrifices."  (Philippi.)  In  12:  1, 
all  Christians  are,  as  priests,  exhorted  to  offer 
a  sacrifice  to  God,  even  their  own  bodies.] 

In  ver.  17-22,  the  apostle  declares  the  extent 
and  result  of  his  apostolic  labors. 

17.    [Therefore   draws  an  inference  from 


the  verb  'wrought,'  contrasts  himself  with 
others,  and  his  actual  labors  with  those  which 
others  had  professedly  performed,  and  that  he 
wishes  to  take  no  credit  for  labors  which  he, 
with  Christ's  help,  had  not  actually  performed. 
Another  and  preferable  view  (which,  in  har- 
mony with  the  preceding  verses,  emphasizes 
'  Christ'  rather  than  '?ne')  is,  that  Paul  con- 
trasts himself  with  Christ,  and  that  he  will 
take  no  credit  to  his  labors  save  only  as  they 
are  wrought  by  Christ.  So  far  as  the  words 
are  concerned,  they  will  allow  still  another 
thought  (favored  by  Godet) — namely,  that 
almost  everything  had  been  wrought  by  Christ 
through  Paul  for  the  conversion  of  the  Gen- 
tiles ;  he  could  hardly  mention  anything  which 
had  not  been  done.     The  relative   '  which ' 


ver.   15,16,   which  speak  of  his  divinely  ap- |  stands  fov  of  those  things  which.]     To  make 


pointed  ministry  to  the  Gentiles,  I  have 
Avhereof  I  may  glory,  literally,  the  glory- 
ing, equivalent  to  ')ny  glorying,  as  in  the  Re- 
vised Version.  Yet  this  glorying  was  not  in 
himself,  but  in  Christ  Jesus.]  His  glorying  was 
no  selfish  or  vain  boasting,  but  in  those  things 
which  pertain  to  God — that  is,  in  his  ofiice 
and  ministry;  and  in  the  way  in  which, 
through  Jesus  Christ,  he  had  fulfilled  his 
apostolical  commission  he  might  well  glory  as 
he  does  in  1  Cor.  15:  10,  being  careful,  how- 
ever, to  give  all  the  credit  to  the  grace  of 
God.' 

18.  The  apostle  was  very  careful  not  to 
appropriate  to  himself  the  credit  of  what 
others  had  wrought.  He  preferred  pioneer 
work  (ver.  20,  vi),  that  he  might  not  build  on 
another  man's  foundation,  or  seem  to  boast  of 
things  made  ready  to  his  hand  by  others.  (2  Cor. 
10:  12-17.)  He  intimates,  in  the  passage  last  re- 
ferred to,  that  some  professed  servants  of  Christ 
were  not  equally  scrupulous  in  this  regard. 
[There  seem  to  be  two  principal  views  which 
have  guided  expositors  in  the  interprethtion  of 
this  passage.  One  is  that  Paul  by  emphasizing 
the  personal  pronoun  (Si  enov,  or,  through  me)  or 


the  Gentiles  obedient— [literally,  for  the 
obedience  of  the  Gentiles.]  This  was  his  aim, 
and  it  was  largely  successful ;  but  while  their 
actual  obedience,  in  every  case,  was  not  neces- 
sary to  the  peace  of  his  conscience,  it  was 
necessary  to  the  full  joy  of  his  heart.  His  duty 
might  be  fulfilled  without  this,  but  not  his 
desire.  By  word  and  deed.  These  words 
are  to  be  connected  with  the  clause:  'which 
Christ  hath  not  wrought,'  etc.  Christ  wrought 
through  the  apostle,  to  the  conversion  of  the 
Gentiles,  by  deeds  as  well  as  by  words.  From 
this  point  the  sentence  is  completed  as  if  it 
had  been  begun  in  an  affirmative  and  not  in 
a  negative  form.  [The  two  negatives,  occur- 
ring in  two  different  clauses  blended  by  at- 
traction, are  yet  equivalent  to  an  affirmative. 
(Winer,  498.)] 

19.  Through  mighty  signs  and  won- 
ders. [Better,  in  the  power  of  signs  and  won- 
ders] The  miraculous  signs  and  wonders 
which  Christ  wrought  by  Paul  [and  which 
may  be  placed  under  the  category  of  'deed'] 
not  only  served  as  a  proof  of  his  apostleship 
(2  Cor.  12 :  12),  but  also  tended  effectually  to  make 
the  Gentiles  obedient.    See  Acts  13 :  9-12.    But 


1  In  the  phrase:  'things  which  pertain  to  God'  (for 
like  phrtiseology,  see  Heb.  2:  17;  5:  1)  we  have  what  is 
Bometimes  termed  the  Greek  accusative,  or  accusative  of 


synecdoche,  called  by  Buttmann,  p.  152,  the  accusative 
of  limitation.    See  on  12 :  18.— (F.) 


Ch.  XV.] 


ROMANS. 


297 


of  the  Spirit  of  God ;  so  that  from  Jerusalem,  and  round 
about  unto  lllyricum,  I  have  fully  preached  the  gospel 
of  Christ. 

20  Yea,  so  have  I  strived  to  preach  the  gospel,  not 
where  Christ  was  named,  lest  1  should  build  upon 
another  man's  foundation : 


that  from  Jerusalem,  and  round  about  even  unto 
lllyricum,   I    have    'fully   preached   the  gospel   of 
20  Christ ;  yea,  -  making  it  luy  aim  so  to  preacli  the  gos- 
pel, not  where  Christ  was  already  uamed,  that  I 


1  Or.  fulfilled '2  Gr.  being  ambitioue. 


it  was  the  power  of  the  Spirit  of  God  [or  the 
Holy  Spirit,  as  in  the  Revision]  that  wrought 
most  effectually  to  this  end.  Indeed,  without 
this,  the  '  mighty  signs  and  wonders'  would  not 
have  brought  a  single  Gentile  soul  to  the  sav- 
ing obedience  of  faith.  [Of  these  two  forms 
of  miracles,  "the  'sign'  includes  more  an  ob- 
jective, the  'wonder'  more  a  subjective  refer- 
ence." (Philippi)  The  latter  word,  derived 
from  a  verb  signifying  to  watch,  is  primarily 
"a  sign  claiming  the  observation,  the  wonder 
of  men."  It  is  never  found  alone  in  the  New 
Testament.  In  2  Cor.  12:  12,  Paul  speaks  to 
these  very  Corinthians  in  whose  city  he  is  now 
writing  of  the  signs,  wonders,  and  powers  per- 
formed through  him  among  them  as  signs  of 
his  apostleship.  See  Acts  14:  3;  15:  12;  16: 
16,  seq.  ;  19 :  11 ;  20:  10,  where  mention  is  made 
of  miracles  wrought  by  the  hands  of  Paul.] 
So  that  from  Jerusalem,  and  round  about  ' 
[literally,  and  in  a  circuit  round,  in  the  re-  | 
gions  surrounding  Jerusalem].  He  takes  .Jeru- 
salem and  its  environs  as  his  starting  point,  as  i 
that  was  the  place  where  the  other  apostles,  ' 
according  to  the  Lord's  direction  (Luke  24:  47),  | 
began  their  work,  and  where  he  himself  first 
joined  their  fellowship  (Acts 9: 26-28),  although  he 
had  before  this  preached  at  Damascus  (Acts  9: 
13-22),  and  probably  also  in  Arabia.  (Gai.  i:  n.) 
Unto  lllyricum.  This  was  a  district  lying 
along  the  eastern  coast  of  the  Adriatic.  We 
have  no  mention  in  the  Acts  of  Paul's  preach- 
ing in  that  country;  but  we  know,  from  Acts 
20  :  1-3,  that  he  traversed  Macedonia,  which 
was  adjacent  to  lllyricum,  a  short  time  before 
he  wrote  this  Epistle ;  and  he  probably  at  that 
time  crossed  the  boimdary  and  preached  in 
lllyricum.  He  mentions  this  as  the  western 
limit,  at  that  time,  of  his  evangelical  labors. 
From  Jerusalem,  a  curve  northerly  and  west- 
erly to  Illj^ricum,  would  be  a  distance  of  not 
far  from  fourteen  hundred  miles  in  length. 
["Upon  the  southeast  terminus  a  quo  follows 
the  northwest  terminus  ad  queyn."  (Philippi.) 
In  2  Tim.  4:  10  we  read  of  Titus  going  to  Dal- 


matia,  a  part  of  the  Roman  province  of  lllyri- 
cum, where  Paul  himself  had  probably  la- 
bored (Acts  20:  2),  and  whither  he  himself  may 
have  sent  Titus.]  I  have  fully  preached 
[literally, /M(/i/(^erf,  the  gospel  of  Christ,  in 
its  spirit  and  purpose,  by  preaching.  Meyer: 
Brought  to  fulfillment — that  is,  spread  the  gos- 
pel abroad  everywhere.  Compare  Col.  1 :  25 ; 
Acts  12:  25.  The  gospel  of  Christ  had  been 
proclaimed  in  the  most  important  places 
throughout  this  extensive  circuit.  The  word 
'Christ'  in  Paul's  writings  generally  takes  the 
article  when  dependent  as  here  upon  a  pre- 
ceding word.  Were  the  apostle  again  on  earth, 
could  he  not  find  a  'place'  (ver. 23)  and  a  neces- 
sity, too,  in  this  same  vast  region  for  once  more 
preaching  'the  gospel  of  Christ'  in  its  native 
simplicity,  purity,  and  power?  Were  he  per- 
mitted to  do  so,  he  would,  methinks,  tell  these 
peoples,  as  he  did  the  Galatians:  "  Ye  observe 
days  and  months  and  times  and  years.  I  am 
afraid  of  you,  lest  I  have  bestowed  upon  you 
labor  in  vain."  (oai.  4: 10,  u.)  Little  did  he  im- 
agine that  after  the  lapse  of  eighteen  centuries 
a  few  Christian  people  from  this  then  unknown 
Western  world  would  go  to  labor  in  those  same 
regions  as  missionaries  of  the  cross  of  Christ.] 

20.  Yea,  so — that  is,  according  to  the  rule 
mentioned  in  the  remainder  of  the  verse. 
Have  I  strived — literally,  making  it  a  point 
of  honor}  The  verb  translated  'strived'  is 
used  in  only  two  other  places :  2  Cor.  5 :  9 
(translated  "labor"),  and  1  Thess.  4:  11  (trans- 
lated "study").  Comparing  the  three  pas- 
sages, we  are  led  to  infer  that  the  apostle's  idea 
of  true  honor  in  Christian  service  was  this, 
that  he  was  ambitious,  as  we  might,  without 
much  license,  translate  the  word,  to  do  the 
most  unostentatious,  the  most  needful,  the  most 
laborious,  the  most  self-denj'ing  work  for 
Christ.  The  church  would  have  great  peace, 
and  the  whole  world  would  soon  have  the  gos- 
pel, if  all  ministers  of  Christ  had  this  spirit. 
Not  [this  introduces  the  negative  specification 
of  the  so,  as  the  following  but  (ver.  21)  introduces 


1  Instead  of  this  participle  agreeing  with  |oie  in  ver.  19,  several  manuscripts  have  the  finite  verb,  which,  hiwever, 
is  commonly  regarded  as  a  correction. — (F.) 


298 


KOMANS. 


[Ch.  XV. 


21  But  as  it  is  written,  To  whom  he  was  not  spoken 
of,  they  shall  see:  and  they  that  have  not  heard  shall 
understand. 

22  For  which  cause  also  I  have  been  much  hindered 
from  coming  to  you. 

23  But  now  having  no  more  place  in  these  parts,  and 
having  a  great  desire  these  many  years  to  come  unto 
you; 

24  Whensoever  I  take  ray  journey  into  Spain,  I  will 
come  to  you  :  for  I  trust  to  see  you  lu  my  journey,  and 


might  not  build  upon  another  man's  foundation ; 

21  but,  as  it  is  written. 

They  shall  see,  to  whom  no  tidings  of  him 
came. 

And  they  who  have  not  heard  shall  under- 
stand. 

22  Wherefore  also  I  was  hindered  these  many  times 

23  from  coming  to  you  :  but  now,  having  no  more  any 
place  in  these  regions,  and  having  these  many  years 

24  a  longing  to  come  unto  you,  when.soever  I  go  unto 
Spain  i^for  1  hope  to  see  you  in  my  journey,  and  to 


the  jwsitive.  (De  Wette. )]  where  Christ  was 

named,  or  where  the  gospel  had  been  already 
preached.  He  preferred  to  do  strictly  pioneer 
misbionary  work  in  regions  destitute  of  the 
gospel,  and  where  the  necessity'  was  the  most 
urgent,  rather  than  build  upon  another 
man's  foundation.  [Dr.  Gitford  remarks 
that  "  Paul's  letters  to  the  Colossians  and  Lao- 
diceans  (among  whom  he  had  not  labored  at 
the  time  of  writing  to  them)  are  sufficient 
proof  that  in  writing  to  the  Church  at  Rome 
he  was  not  transgressing  his  rule  to  avoid  build- 
ing on  another  man's  foundation."  It  seems 
almost  needless  to  say  that  the  apostle,  in  avoid- 
ing a  field  thus  partially  cultivated,  had  no  self- 
ish or  unworthy  motive.] 

21.  Having  in  the  latter  part  of  the  previous 
verse  described  negatively  the  rule  by  which 
he  was  governed  in  selecting  the  field  of  his 
evangelistic  labors,  Paul  now  describes  it  posi- 
tively by  a  quotation  from  Isa.  52:  15,  taken 
quite  literally  from  the  LXX.  [To  whom  he 
was  not  spoken  of— literal I3',  to  whom  it  loas 
not  announced  concerning  him.  The  last  two 
words,  rightly  filling  out  the  sense,  are  not  in 
the  original  Hebrew,  but  in  the  LXX.  They 
shall  understand.  The  verb  means  to  send 
together,  here,  "to  bring  the  outward  object 
into  connection  with  the  inward  sense."  (Lid- 
dell  and  Scott.)] 

22.  For  which  cause— that  is,  on  account 
of  the  above  rule  of  choosing  my  field  of  labor 
[or,  as  De  Wette  states  it:  "because  I  had 
enough  to  do  from  Jerusalem  to  Illyricum"]. 
I  have  been  much  hindered,  or,  mnny  times 
hindered.  Compare  1 :  13.  [Some  MSS.  here 
read  "often,"  as  in  1:  13.  The  rendering  of 
the  Vulgate,  pleritmque,  for  the  most  jyart, 
supposes  that  Paul  had  other  hindrances.  The 
imperfect  tense  of  the  verb  denotes  in  itself  a 
continuous  hindrance.  The  verb,  denoting 
separation,  is  naturally  followed  by  the  geni- 
tive (here  the  genitive  infinitive)  as  the  case  of 
departure  or  separation.  Farrar  notices  that 
several  expressions  in  this  chapter  are  closely 


analogous  to  some  in  the  first  chapter.]  From 
coming  to  you,  to  whom  I  knew  the  gospel 
had  been  successfully  preached.  [Yet  the  fact 
that  the  Roman  Church  was  founded  by  others 
was  not  the  hindrance  referred  to,  for  this  still 
remained.  What  hindered  the  apostle  was  his 
abundant  labors  in  founding  churches  in  desti- 
tute places  in  the  East.] 

23.  Having  no  more  place  in  these 
parts — having  fully  preached  the  gospel  in 
the  regions  east  of  this,  I  regard  my  apostolic 
work  in  these  parts  as  finished.  [The  whole 
statement  shows  that  the  hindrances  referred 
to  were  now  removed.  According  to  Meyer, 
one  motive  which  induced  Paul  now  to  visit 
Rome  and  the  West,  was  the  nearness  of  the 
coming  of  the  Lord,  which  the  apostle  expected 
to  behold  in  the  flesh,  but  which  could  not  take 
place,  as  the  apostle  himself  has  taught  us,  till 
the  fullness  of  the  Gentiles  was  brought  in,  and 
all  Israel  were  saved!  Who  can  think  it  pos- 
sible that  the,  apostle  had  such  great  expecta- 
tions?] Having  a  great  desire  (a  longing, 
it  might  well  be  translated)  these  many 
years  to  come  unto  you.  It  was  about  four 
years  since  Paul  had  met  at  Corinth  Aquila 
and  Priscilla,  then  lately  come  from  Rome 
(Acts  18:  1-3) ;  and  although  what  he  had  heard 
from  them  during  the  time  of  his  intimate 
connection  with  them  (Acts  18:3),  doubtless  in- 
creased his  interest  in  the  church  at  Rome, 
and  his  great  desire  to  visit  them  (Actsi9:  21),  we 
need  not  suppose  that  this  was  the  first  knowl- 
edge he  had  received  of  them.  Probably  he 
would  hardly  have  spoken  of  his  desire  to  visit 
them,  as  one  which  he  had  cherished  for  many 
years,  if  it  had  not  been  of  longer  date  than 
that. 

24.  [The  most  important  MSS.  omit  I  will 
come  to  you,  and  retain  the  for;  and  this 
reading,  though  somewhat  difficult  and  broken, 
is  adopted  by  Westcott  and  Hort,  and  by  the 
Revisers.  Godet  and  Meyer  drop  the  'for,' 
thus  making  it  all  smooth  reading.  Whenso- 
ever {as  soon  as,  see  1  Cor.  11:  34;  Phil.  2: 


Ch.  XV.] 


ROMANS. 


299 


to  be  brought  on  my  way  thitherward  by  you,  if  first  I 
be  somewhat  filled  with  your  company. 

25  But  aow  I  go  unto  Jerusalem  to  minister  unto  the 
saints. 


be  brought  on  my  way  thitherward  by  you,  if  first 
in   some  measure  1  shall  have  been  satisfied  with 

25  your  company), — but  now,  I  say,  1  go  unto  Jenisalem, 

26  ministering  unto  the  saints.     For  it  hath  been  the 


23)  I  take  my  journey  into  Spain,  I  will 
come  to  you.]  Whether  the  apostle  ever 
made  this  journey  to  Spain  cannot  be  possibly 
determined.*  If  he  did,  it  must  have  been  at 
a  later  period  than  that  at  which  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles  ends.  There  is  much  reason  to 
think  that  between  the  time  of  the  imprison- 
ment at  Rome,  mentioned  in  the  last  chapter 
of  Acts,  and  his  martyrdom  in  that  city,  he 
was  liberated,  traveled  in  the  Eastern  parts, 
and  wrote  the  First  Epistle  to  Timothy,  and 
the  Epistle  to  Titus,  after  these  things;  and 
then  was  a  second  time  imprisoned  in  Rome, 
•where  he  wrote  his  Second  Epistle  to  Timothy 
shortly  before  his  martyrdom.  This  view  is 
ably  presented  and  defended  in  an  appendix 
at  the  close  of  the  second  volume  of  the  v/^ork 
on  the  "Life  and  Epistles  of  Paul,"  by  Cony- 
beare  and  Howson.  But  if  the  certainty  of 
this  release  and  second  imprisonment  could  be 
made  out,  it  would  not  carry  with  it  the  cer- 
tainty that  the  ap  stle  made  his  intended  visit 
to  Spain  during  that  intervening  period  be- 
tween his  two  imprisonments.  The  early  tra- 
dition is  too  vague  and  scanty  to  be  the  basis 
of  an  intelligent  belief.  Probably  this  part  of 
the  apostle's  plan  of  his  own  life  and  labors 
was  never  realized.  And  to  be  brought  on 
my  way  thitherward  by  you.  Probably 
he  was  accustomed,  in  his  missionary  travels, 
to  be  escorted  on  his  way,  for  a  greater  or  less 
distance,  by  some  of  the  brethren  whom  he 
was  leaving  (see  Acts  15:  3;  17:  14,  15;  20: 
38;  21:  5,  16  [compare  1  Cor.  16:  6;  2  Cor. 
1 :  16]),  and  he  was  hoping  to  receive  the  same 
courtesy  from  them  on  his  way  to  Spain.  If 
first  I  be  somewhat  filled  with  your  com- 
pany.    The  word   'company'   is  not  in  the 


original  Greek,  but  it  is  well  supplied  by  the 
translators,  being,  in  fact,  implied,  and  requi- 
site to  complete  the  sense.  [The  last  clause, 
literally  rendered,  is:  If  I  may  first  in  jtart 
be  made  full  of  you — satisfied  with  your  com- 
pany—"not  so  much  as  I  might  wish,  but  as 
much  as  circumstances  will  permit."  (Gro- 
tius.)  The  delicacy  of  the  apostle  in  all  this 
representation  is  genuine  and  consummate. 
Prof.  Boise,  in  his  notes  on  this  passage,  says : 
"  It  is  a  common  experience  in  this  world  that 
we  cannot  see  enough  of  those  whom  we  love. 
Yonder  there  will  be  no  more  parting!  "  Yet 
very  precious  and  blessed  to  us  in  our  frequent 
earthly  farewells,  is  the  sentiment  once  ad- 
dressed to  the  venerable  missionary,  Dr.  Wil- 
liam G.  Schauffler,  by  Maria  Dorothea,  the 
Christian  Archduchess  of  Austria,  on  occasion 
of  his  leave-taking,  that  "Christians  never 
see  each  other  for  the  last  time."]  Paul  was 
evidently  looking  forward  to  a  short  sojourn 
with  the  Roman  brethren  which  would  partly 
(somewhat)  satisfy  his  wishes;  but  only  in 
part,  on  account  of  its  shortness.  How  differ- 
ent was  the  fact  from  his  expectation!  He 
dwelt  two  whole  years  among  them  bound 
with  a  chain.     (Acts  28:  20,  so.) 

25.  But  now — before  I  can  indulge  my 
cherished  longing  to  visit  you.  [This  is  men- 
tioned as  a  hindrance  to  any  immediate  visit. 
These  words,  '  but  now,'  which  seem  to  connect 
back  with  going  to  Spain,  etc.,  occur  also  in 
the  beginning  of  ver.  23.]  I  go  [am  going)  to 
Jerusalem  [his  fifth  journey  thither,  see  Acts 
9:  26;  11:  30;  15:  4;  18:  21.]  To  minister 
(literally,  mitiistering,  present  participle;  the 
journey  was  a  part  of  the  ministering)  unto 
the   saints.      ["Only  they  would  that  we 


1  The  most  important  evidence  in  favor  of  the  apostle's 
visit  to  Spain  is  the  testimony  of  Clement,  the  third 
bishop  of  Rome,  supposed  by  many  to  be  the  Clement 
mentioned  in  Phil.  4:3.  In  his  first  letter  to  the  Cor- 
inthians, Clement  writes  as  follows :  "  Paul  received  the 
prize  of  endurance,  having  borne  chains  seven  times, 
having  been  banished,  stoned,  and  having  become  a 
herald  in  the  East  and  in  the  West,  teaching  the  whole 
world;  and  having  come  to  the  limit  of  the  West; 
and  having  witnessed  (as  a  martyr)  before  rulers,  he 
was  thus  released  from  the  world,  and  went  unto  the 
holy  place."  It  is  commonly  and  truly  supposed  that 
Clement,  living  at  Rome,  could  not  speak  of  that  city 


or  region  a.s  "the  limit  of  the  West."  Muratori's 
"Fragment  on  the  Canon,"  written  about  a.  d.  170, 
makes  mention  of  the  "journey  of  Paul,  setting  forth 
from  the  city  (of  Rome?)  for  Spain."  Jerome,  who 
spent  his  early  years  in  Rome,  speaks  of  Paul  as  having 
been  set  free  by  Nero  that  he  might  preach  the  gospel 
"  also  in  the  regions  of  the  West."  Chrysostom  and 
Theodoret  assert  that  the  apostle  went  to  Spain  after 
his  imprisonment  at  Rome,  and  Irenseus  refers  to 
churches  in  Spain  as  being  somewhat  ancient  in  his 
times.  Spimia  is  another  form  of  Hispania,  usually 
called  Iberia.— (F.) 


300 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  XV. 


26  For  it  hath  pleased  them  of  Macedonia  and  Achaia 
to  make  a  certain  contribution  for  the  poor  saints  which 
are  at  Jerusalem. 

27  It  hath  pleased  them  verily,  and  their  debtors  they 
are.  For  if  the  Gentiles  have  been  made  partakers  of 
their  .spiritual  things,  their  duty  is  also  to  minister  unto 
them  in  carnal  things. 

28  When  therefore  I  have  performed  this,  and  have 
sealed  to  them  this  fruit,  1  will  come  by  you  into  Spain. 


good  pleasure  of  Macedonia  and  Achaia  to  make  a 
certain  contribution  for  the  poor  among  the  saints 

27  that  are  at  Jerusalem.  Yea,  it  hath  been  their  good 
pleasure;  and  their  debtors  they  are.  For  if  the 
Gentiles  have  been  made  partakers  of  their  spiritual 
things,  they  owe  it   to  them  also  to  minister  unto 

28  theni  in  carnal  things.  When  therefore  I  have 
accomplished  this,  and  have  sealed  to  them  this  fruit, 


should  remember  the  poor,  which  very  thing 
I  was  also  zealous  to  do."  (Gai.2:io.)  Paul 
had  once  before,  in  company  with  Barnabas, 
carried  relief  unto  the  brethren  that  dwelt  in 
Judea.  (Acts  11:  30.)]  In  reference  to  thio  pro- 
posed journey  and  ministering,  compare  Acts 
19:21;  20:22;  24:  17;  1  Cor.  16 :  1 ;  2  Cor. 
8:1-6;  9:  1.  Such  coincidences  as  these,  of 
which  we  have  many  striking  instances  in  the 
New  Testament,  not  only  throw  light  on  the 
date  of  the  epistles,  but  being  evidently  un- 
studied, are  among  the  strongest  evidences  of 
historic  truth.  See  Paley's  "Horas  Paulinse." 
26.  [For  it  hath  pleased  them, etc. — liter- 
ally,/or  Macedonia  and  Achaia  loere  pleased, 
or,  thought  it  good.  Instead  of  Achaia,  we  have 
in  Acts  20 : 2,  Hellas,  the  more  usual  classic  term 
for  Greece.  In  his  letters  to  the  Corinthians  (1 
Cor.  16  : 1 ;  2  Cor.  9  :  2,  and  in  this  place),  Paul, 
as  Bengel  remarks,  "proposes  the  Galatians  as 
as  an  example  to  the  Corinthians,  the  Corin- 
thians to  the  Macedonians,  and  the  Corinthians 
and  Macedonians  to  the  Romans.  Great  is  the 
power  of  examples."  Some  have  surmised 
that  Paul  is  here  giving  a  gentle  hint  to  the 
Romans  that  a  contribution  from  them  Avould 
be  acceptable,  but  this  is  altogether  improbable. 
The  earnest  yet  mo.st  delicate  manner  which 
he  uses  when  seeking  a  contribution  may  be 
seen  in  2  Cor.,  chapters  8  and  9.  Query :  Was 
it  one  motive  of  the  apostle,  in  dwelling  so  long 
on  this  subject  in  his  letter  to  the  Corinthians, 
to  stop  their  dissensions  and  divisions  by  enlist- 
ing their  thoughts  and  energies  in  this  chari- 
table work?  The  word  for  contribution 
properly  means  a  sharing  of,  or  participation 
in,  anything.  It  is  frequently  rendered  fel- 
lowship, and  it  is  the  word  which  stands  for 
the  "communion"  (that  is,  a  partaking)  of  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ,  (i  cor.  io:i6.)  Com- 
pare also  2  Cor.  13:14:  "The  communion  of 
the  Holy  Ghost."  A  fellowship  or  sharing  in 
the  necessities  of  others  naturally  finds  its  out- 
ward expression  in  the  taking  up  of  a  collection 


for  them  or  making  a  contribution.  The  verb 
meaning  to  share  in,  sometimes  rendered  to 
distribute  or  communicate,  occurs  in  the  next 
verse  and  in  12  :  13.  Paul  speaks  somewhat 
slightingly  of  the  contribution  as  'a  certain,' 
because  any  amount  of  material  gifts  conferred 
would  to  him  appear  small  in  comparison  with 
the  spiritual  blessings  received.]  For  the 
poor  saints — literally,  poor  of  the  saints, 
implying  that  they  were  not  all  poor,  and  also 
implying  that  the  alleged  community  of  goods 
in  the  church  at  Jerusalem,  if  any  such  thing, 
in  the  proper  sense  of  the  words,  had  ever  ex- 
isted there,  had  ceased  to  exist  before  this. 

27.  It  hath  pleased  them  verily  [better, 
for  they  were  2:>leased  to  dh  so].  They  have 
done  it  voluntarily,  yet  they  have  done  only 
their  duty,  for  their  debtors  they  are. 
Having  received  from  the  Jewish  believers  in 
Jerusalem  such  great  spiritual  blessings,  they 
are  under  obligation  to  supply,  according  to 
their  ability,  the  temporal  necessities  of  their 
Jewish  brethren.  [The  word  for  'debtors'  is 
derived  from  a  verb  meaning  ought,  it  is  a 
duty}  The  apostle  regards  this  ministering  to 
the  bodily  necessities  of  the  saints  as  a  priestly 
service  for  Christ  and  as  truly  a  religious  ser- 
vice as  the  preaching  of  the  gospel  of  God. 
See  in  ver.  16,  and  compare  Acts  13  :  2.  This 
is  but  one  text  out  of  many  which  makes  it  the 
duty  of  those  who  are  taught  in  the  word  to 
communicate  unto  him  that  teacheth  in  "car- 
nal things"  and  in  "all  good  things."     (Gai.6: 

6  ;  1  Cor.  9  :  II,  13,  14  ;  1  Tim.  5  :  17,  18.)] 

28.  When  therefore  I  have  performed 
this,  and  have  sealed  to  them  this  fruit — 

have  made  this  contribution  ['this  fruit'  of  the 
faith  and  love  of  the  Gentiles  ( Alford)]  securely 
theirs,  by  actually  delivering  it  into  their 
hands — I  Avill  come  by  you  [through  you, 
through  your  city.  Compare  2  Cor.  1  :  16. 
The  verb  is  sometimes  used  in  the  sense  of 
coming  back].  I  will  visit  you  on  my  way  to 
Spain.     See   notes  on   ver.  24.      ["  Would  a 


1  Verbs  of  sharing  usually  govern  the  genitive  (see  Ueb.  2 :  14),  but  the  verb  here  signifying  to  participate  in 
is  followed  by  the  dative,  as  in  12 :  13.— (F.) 


Ch.  XV.] 


ROMANS. 


301 


29  And  I  am  sure  that,  when  I  come  unto  you,  I  shall 
come  in  the  fulness  of  the  blessing  of  the  gospel  of 
Christ. 

30  Xow  I  beseech  you,  brethren,  for  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ's  sake,  and  for  the  love  of  the  Spirit,  that  ye 
strive  together  with  me  in  iionr  prayers  to  (iod  for  me ; 

31  That  I  may  be  delivered  from  them  that  do  not 
believe  in  Judea;  and  that  my  service  which  I  have  tor 
Jerusalem  may  be  accepted  of  the  saints; 

32  Thai  I  may  come  unto  you  with  joy  by  the  will  of 
God,  and  may  with  you  be  refreshed. 


29  I  will  go  on  by  you  unto  Spain.  And  I  know  that, 
when  1  come  unto  you,  I  shall  come  ir;  the  fulness  of 
the  blessing  of  Christ. 

30  Now  I  beseech  you,  brethren,  by  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  and  by  the  love  of  the  Spirit,  that  ye  strive 
together  with  me  in   your  prayers  to  God  "for  me; 

31  that  I  may  be  delivered  from  them  that  are  dis- 
obedient in  Juduja,  and  tluii  my  ministration  which  / 
have  for  Jerusalem  may  be  acceptable  to  the  saints: 

32  that  I  may  come  unto  you  in  joy  through  the  will  of 


forger,  writing  in  the  apostle's  name  in  the 
secDnd  century,  have  made  him  pen  a  plan  of 
the  future  so  different  from  the  way  in  which 
things  really  came  to  pass?"     (Godet. )] 

29.  And  I  am  sure  that,  when  I  come, 
etc.  The  apostle's  assurance  on  this  subject 
[his  bringing  with  him  such  abundance  of 
spiritual  blessing  from  Christ]  was  founded, 
not  only  on  his  conscious  desire  and  purpose 
to  do  them  good,  but  also,  doubtless,  on  the 
remembrance  of  his  experience  in  other 
churches  that  he  had  visited.  ["Not  many 
men  would  venture  to  sjjeak  so  emphatically, 
but  Paul  was  always  perfectly  frank  in  ex- 
pressing what  he  felt."  (Boise.)]  Of  the 
gospel.  Tliese  words  should  be  omitted,  as 
lacking  in  the  best  manuscripts.  In  the  full- 
ness of  the  blessing  of  Christ  is  the  true  read- 
ing. Tins  result,  which  he  refers  to  in  other 
words  in  1  :  11,  12,  was  doubtless  realized 
when  he  did  at  last  visit  them,  though  his 
expectation  may  not  have  been  realized  in 
regard  to  his  journey  to  Spain. 

30.  Now  I  beseech  you,  brethren,  for 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ's  sake  [I  exhort 
^'ou  through  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  (a  tender 
appeal  to  the  Christian's  heart),  and  for  (or, 
by)  the  love  of  the  Spirit  (that  love  which  is 
poured  forth  in  the  hearts  of  believers  by  the 
Holy  Spirit),  that  ye  strive  together  with 
me, — strive  earnestly,  wrestle  together  (as  in 
the  games), — in  your  prayers  to  God  for 
me.  Bengel  says  that  "Paul  is  the  only 
apostle  who  asks  the  praj'ers  of  believers  for 
himself"  In  nearly  all  his  epistles  (see  2  Cor. 
1:11;  Eph.  6:19;  Phil.  1:19;  Col.  4:3;  1 
Thess.  5:2.5;  2  Thess.  3:1;  Philem.  22)i  he 
entreats  the  prayers  and  supplications  of  his 
brethren  in  his  behalf  Surely  he  must  have 
thouglit  that  the  "supplication  of  a  righteous 
man  availeth  much."     And  if  such  a  man  as 


he — inspired  of  God,  endowed  to  work  mira- 
cles, strong  in  faith,  and  gifted  with  mental 
endowments  of  the  highest  order — felt  the  need 
of  the  prayers  of  his  brethren,  how  much  more 
deeplj'  may  we  feel  the  need  of  striving  to- 
gether, with  and  for  one  another,  in  prayer  to 
God!  More  especially  should  they  who  are 
'separated  unto  the  gospel  of  God'  have  the 
earnest  and  constant — yea,  the  wrestling  pray- 
ers of  God's  people].  Paul's  manner  is  pecu- 
liarly earnest  and  solemn  here.  He  not  only 
asks  their  prayers,  but  asks  them  to  'strive'  in 
prayer,  and  this,  not  only  '  for  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ's  sake,'  which  is  no  unusual  expression 
with  him,  but  also  '  for  the  love  of  the  Spirit,' 
an  unprecedented  and  remarkable  phrase, 
meaning  that  love  of  which  the  H0I3'  Spirit  is 
the  author.  See  Gal.  5  :  22;  Col.  1  :  8.  This 
peculiar  earnestness  and  solemnity  finds  its 
explanation  in  the  following  verse. 

31.  That  I  may  be  delivered,  etc.  He 
knew  how  bitter  was  the  hatred  of  the  unbe- 
lieving Jews  townrd  him  since  his  conversion 
(Acts  22: 22),  and  with  what  suspicion  he  was  re- 
garded by  the  believers  in  Jerusalem  [the  Jew- 
ish saints,  "  all  zealots  for  the  law  "] ;  see  Acta 
20:  22,  23;  21:  10-14,  20,  21;  so  that,  although 
he  was  going  to  the  latter  on  an  errand  of  benefi- 
cence, he  had  reason  to  fear  that  his  service 
.  .  .  for  Jerusalem  ["my  ministration^ 
which  is  for  Jerusalem "]  might  not  be  ac- 
cepted ;  and  the  result  showed  that  his  forebod- 
ings were  not  without  reas(m.     See  Acts  21-23. 

32.  That  I  may  come  unto  you  with 
joy.  This  is  the  third  object  for  which  he 
asks  them  to  strive  in  prayer  for  him.  It  was 
most  intimately  connected  with  the  preceding 
two.  If  the  first  (first  half  of  ver.  31)  was  not 
granted,  he  could  not  come  unto  them  at  all ; 
if  the  second  (last  half  of  ver.  31)  was  not 
granted,   he  could   not  come  vnth  joy.     He 


1  Those  who  hold  to  the  Pauline  authorship  of  the 
"  Hebrews  "  would  cite  13  :  18  of  that  epistle.  In  most 
of  his  letters  he  assures  his  readers  of  his  supplications 
on  their  behalf.    See  Rom.  1 :  9 ;  2  Cor.  13  :  7-9;  Eph.  1 : 


16;   Phil.  1  :  4,  9;   Col.  1  :  3,  9  ;   1  Thess.  1 :  2  (3  :  10) ;   2 
Thess.  1 :  11 ;  2  Tim.  1:3;  Philem.  4,  etc.— ^F.) 

2 For  'ministration,' certain  MSS.  have  the  explana- 
tory, gijt-bringing. — (F.) 


302 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  XV. 


33  Now  the  God  of  peace  be  with  you  all.    Ameu. 


33  God,  and  together  with  you  find  rest.    Kow  the  God 
of  peace  be  with  you  all.    Amen. 


hoped  to  be  refreshed  [that  he  might  find 
rest  for  himself,  after  his  many  toils  and  dan- 
gers] by  his  Christian  intercourse  with  them. 
[In  many  respects  the  apostle's  prayer  and  the 
prayers  of  his  brethren  for  him  were  not  liter- 
ally answered.  He  was  indeed' delivered' out 
of  the  hands  of  the  Jews,  but  this  deliverance 
was  into  two  years'  imprisonment  in  Cassarea, 
to  be  followed  by  a  wearisomely  protracted  sea- 
voyage,  with  its  attendant  shipwreck,  and  this 
again  by  a  two  years'  imprisonment  in  bonds 
at  Rome.  Instead  of  this  he  hoped  soon  to 
visit  Rome,  to  be  prospered  on  his  journey 
thither,  to  be  filled  and  refreshed  with  their 
company  for  a  brief  period,  and  then  to  be 
sent  forward  by  them  to  Spain  as  the  chief  seat 
and  scene  of  his  labors.  He  did  indeed  'see 
Rome  ;  he  iid  go  there,  we  must  suppose,  '  in 
the  fullness  of  the  blessing  of  Christ,'  and  not 
wholly  without  'joy.'  He  did,  doubtless,  im- 
part to  the  believers  there  '.some  spiritual  gift,' 
and  though  an  ambassador  of  Christ  in  chains, 
he  yet  had,  as  we  have  seen  at  1 :  15,  large 
opportunities  for  preaching  the  gospel  in  the 
world's  capital,  and  he  doubtless  reaped  there 
'some  fruit,'  even  as  he  had  done  among  the 
rest  of  the  Gentiles.  Still  his  prayers  were  not 
full3'  answered.  "What  then?  Did  Paul  ac- 
cuse himself,  or  were  there  any  in  his  day  to 
accuse  him  of  "want  of  faith"  as  the  reason 
his  prayers  were  not  answered  to  the  letter? 
Far  enough  from  this.  Paul  indeed  prayed 
that  he  might  be  'prospered'  in  his  journey 
toward  Rome,  and  that  he  '  might  come  in  joy ' ; 
but  his  true  prayer  was  that  he  might  be  pros- 
pered iyi  the  will  of  Ood  (i:  lo),  and  that  he 
might  come  through  the  will  of  God  (or,  as 
several  MSS.  read  :  through  the  will  of  Christ 
Jesus).  But  it  was  God's  will  that  Paul  should 
visit  Rome  as  a  prisoner  in  chains,  and  it  was 
the  will  and  counsel  of  his  Lord  and  Saviour 
that  he  should  suffer  still  other  things  "for  his 
name's  sake."  (Aots9:i6.)  But  did  not  Paul, 
after  all,  make  a  mistake  when  he  compro- 
mised with  those  law-zealous  saints  in  Jeru- 
salem? We  have  sometimes  thought  that  he 
did  so.  But  who  knows  best?  Suppose  that 
Paul,  after  stopping  a  few  days  in  Judasa,  had 
set  out  for  Rome,  and  that  after  a  prosperous 
journey  thither  and  a  short  period  of  rest  in 
that  place,  he  had  gone  to  Spain,  and  that  be 


had  always  had  his  liberty,  never  seeing  the 
inside  of  a  prison's  walls,  would  this  have  been 
best  for  the  world  and  the  Church  of  Christ? 
Should  we  not  have  sadly  missed  his  prison 
experience?  And  what  could  we  have  done 
without  those  prison  letters  of  his,  some  of 
tiiem,  it  may  be,  written  with  his  own  chained 
right  hand?  Is  not  "Paul,  a  prisoner  of 
Christ  Jesus,"  vastly  better  for  the  world  than 
Paul  with  any  other  epithet?  Was  not  Bun- 
yan  in  prison  a  thousand  times  better  for  the 
cause  of  Christ  than  a  Bunyan  at  liberty?  If 
these  things  are  so,  then  we  may  say  that 
the  prayers  of  Paul,  whose  meat  and  drink  it 
was  to  do  and  suffer  for  the  cause  and  glory  of 
his  Saviour,  and  according  to  his  will,  were  an- 
swered— not  answered,  indeed,  according  to 
the  plan  he  had  marked  out,  but  in  a  way 
which  divine  wisdom  saw  best.  And  who  can 
tell  us  any  better  way  ?  But  it  may  be  asked, 
whether  God  may  not  by  his  Spirit  instruct 
the  believer's  mind,  lead  him  to  see  just  what 
to  pray  for,  and  give  him  the  faith  which  will 
receive  the  exact  answer  desired?  Certainly, 
he  may  do  so;  and  some  of  the  promises  made 
by  Christ  specially,  perhaps,  to  his  more  imme- 
diate disciples,  and  certain  passages  in  oiie  or 
two  of  the  epistles  have  a  look  in  this  direc- 
tion. But  we  do  not  think  that  God  does  this 
now,  save  in  exceptional  cases,  nor  do  we  think 
that  even  in  these  cases  he  invariably  permits 
the  praying  man  to  know  beforehand  that  his 
prayer  will  be  answered  to  the  very  letter.  It 
seems  to  me  that  if  such  faith  and  knowledge 
were  given  to  any  man,  they  would  have  been 
given  to  the  apostle  Paul.  But  they  were  cer- 
tainly withholden  from  him  when  he  prayed 
for  the  removal  of  the  "thorn  in  the  flesh" 
(2  Cor.  12:7),  and  for  a  speedy  and  prosperous 
journey  to  Rome  and  to  Spain.] 

33.  Now  the  God  of  peace  be  with  you 
all.  [A  prayer  naturally  called  forth  by  the 
thought  of  this  world's  unrest.  Thankful  we 
may  well  be  to  the  God  of  grace  and  peace 
that,  amid  earthly  toils  and  troubles,  we  may 
have  "the  inward  peace  of  conscience,  the  fra- 
ternal peace  of  friendship,  the  heavenly  peace 
of  glory."  (Lyra.)]  This  appears  to  be  the 
end  of  the  Epistle.  It  would  be  a  very  appro- 
priate ending,  especially  in  view  of  the  last 
three  chapters.     It  is  supposed  by  some  that 


Cn.  XVI.] 


ROMANS. 


303 


CHAPTER  XVI. 


I  COMMEND  unto  you  Phebe  our  sister,  which  is  a 
servant  of  the  church  which  is  at  C'encbrea: 
2  That  ye  receive  lier  in  tlie  I^ord,  as  l)econielh  saints, 
and  that  ye  assist  her  in  whatsoever  business  she  hath 
need  of  you :  for  she  hath  been  a  succourer  of  many, 
and  of  myself  also. 


1  I  commend  unto  you   Phebe  our  sister,  who  is  a 

2  'servant  of  the  church  that  is  at  ("enchreie;  that  yt 
receive  her  in  the  Lord,  worthily  of  the  saints,  and 
that  ye  assist  her  in  whatsoever  matter  she  may 
have  need  of  you  :  for  she  herself  also  hath  been  a 
succourer  of  luany,  and  of  mine  own  self. 


1  Or,  deaconess. 


the  apostle  penned  this  benediction  as  the  ter- 
mination of  his  letter,  but  not  finding  an  oppor- 
tunity to  send  it  to  Rome  as  soon  as  he  ex- 
pected, afterward  added  the  salutations  and 
other  contents  of  chapter  16.  If  this  supposi- 
tion were  true,  we  might  be  well  thankful  for 
the  wise  providence  that  caused  the  detention. 


Ch.  16:  [Comniendntion,  Salutations, 
Warning,  Salutations  of  his  Compaiiions, 
Doxology.  ] 

The  personal  salutations  in  this  chapter  are 
important: 

1.  As  evidences  of  the  truth  of  Christianity. 
The  mention  of  so  many  names  and  circum- 
stances excludes  all  idea  of  forgery  or  fiction. 
But  if  the  writing  is  authentic,  the  facts  must 
be  true. 

2.  As  showing  the  personal  character  of  the 
apostle.  He  was  altogether  and  intensely 
human  and  social  in  his  affections  and  sympa- 
thies. On  this  account  these  personal  notices 
are  worthy  of  the  pen  of  inspiration. 

3.  As  showing  how  social  affections  are  sanc- 
tified by  religion. 

4.  As  showing  how  prominent  a  part  was 
taken  by  women  in  the  early  diffusing  of 
Christianity.  Of  the  twenty-eight  persons 
here  named,  eight,  at  least,  perhaps  nine,  were 
women.  And  besides  these  there  were  doubt- 
less some  other  women  included  in  the  house- 
holds and  churches  named.  [The  names  of 
these  women  are  Phebe,  Priscilla,  Mary, 
Junia  (?),  Tryphena,  Tryphosa,  Persis,  and 
Julia.  Paul  also  salutes  the  mother  of  Rufus 
and  the  sister  of  Nereus,  without  giving  their 
names.  It  was  no  unimportant  part  which 
women  performed  in  the  early  history  of 
Christianity.] 

1.  I  coininend  unto  you  Phebe,  etc. 
[On  the  meaning  of  the  verb  commend,  see 
notes  on  5:  8.     'Phebe.'     This  is  one  of  the 


names  of  the  goddess  Diana.  Some  others 
mentioned  below — Nereus,  Hermes  (Hennas), 
are  named  after  heathen  divinities.]  M'liich 
is  a  servant.  The  original  word  is  the  same 
which  is  translated  "deacon  "  in  Phil.  1:1; 
1  Tim.  3:  8,  12.  The  word  is  used  thirty 
times  in  the  New  Testament,  and  is  translated 
"minister  "  or  "  servant,"  except  in  the  three 
places  above  noted.  She  may  have  been  one 
of  those  women  set  apart  in  the  earlj'  church 
to  perform  certain  needful  services  to  their 
own  sex.  We  know  that  such  a  class  existed 
as  early  as  the  time  of  Trajan  and  Pliny,  less 
than  half  a  centurj'  after  the  date  of  this 
Epistle;^  and  manj'  commentators  think  that 
1  Tim.  3  :  11  refers  to  this  class  of  persons, 
and  should  be  translated  "  the  women  "  (that 
is,  who  perform  to  their  own  sex  similar  offices 
to  those  which  the  deacons  perform  for  men), 
and  not  "their  wives,"  the  word  "their" 
being  supplied  by  the  translators.  This  view 
is  somewhat  favored  by  the  u.se  of  the  parti- 
ciple in  Greek,  expressed  in  English  by  the 
relative  clause  'which  is,'  before  the  word 
'servant.'  Cenchrea  was  the  port  of  Cor- 
inth on  the  East,  eight  or  nine  miles  from  the 
city. 

2.  He  exhorts  them  to  receive  her  reli- 
giously (as  one  who  is)  in  the  Lord,  as 
becoineth  saints — in  the  way  in  which  you, 
as  Christians,  ought  to  receive  a  fellow-Chris- 
tian. And  that  ye  (may)  assist  her.  She 
was  deserving  of  this  by  many  titles, — as  a 
woman,  as  a  Christian,  and  as  a  helper,  or 
protectress  of  many, — and  it  was  especially  fit 
that  Paul  should  ask  this  on  her  behalf,  be- 
cause he  had  himself  received  kindness  at  her 
hands.  [In  whatsoever  business  she  hath 
need  of  you.  Taking  the  antecedent,  'busi- 
ness,' out  of  the  relative  clause,  we  might 
have  this  construction:  assist  her  in  any  busi- 
ness in  which  she  may  have  need  of  you. 


1  Pliny  the  younger,  when  Governor  of  the  Province 
of  Hylhinia  (died  about  a.  d.  117),  wrote  to  the  Emperor 
Trajan  that  he  thought  it  necessary  to  torture  two  Chris- 
tian women  "quse    ministrae   dicebantur,"  who  were 


called  deaconesses,  that  he  might  find  out  the  truth 
in  regard  to  this  new  "superstition,"  afterward  termed 
by  him  "  pravam  et  immodicam,"  depraved  and  extrava- 
gant.-(F.) 


304 


KOMANS. 


[Ch.  XVI. 


3  Greet  Priscilla  and  Aquila,  my  helpers  in  Christ 
Jesus : 

4  Who  have  for  my  life  laid  down  their  own  necks: 
uuto  whom  not  only  I  give  thanks,  but  also  all  the 
churches  of  the  Gentiles. 


3  Salute  Prisca  and   Aquila  my  fellow-workers  in 

4  Christ  Jesus,  who   for  my  life  laid  down  their  own 
necks;  unto  whom  not  only  I  give  thanks,  but  also 

5  all    the   churches  of  the  Gentiles ;  and  salute  the 


For  she  liath  been,  etc.  Tlie  Common  ! 
Version,  by  omitting  also  («ol),  fails  to  bring 
out  the  full  idea  of  the  original.  Paul  would 
say:  Do  you  assist  her,  'for  she'  (or,  this 
one),  too  (on  her  part),  has  assisted  many.'] 
This  language  not  only  favors  the  supposition 
that  she  was  a  deaconess,  but  seems  to  imply 
that  she  was  a  person  of  some  property  and 
social  position.  ["  Phebe  may  have  tendered 
service  to  St.  Paul  at  Cenchrea  on  the  occa- 
sion mentioned  in  Acts  18 :  18.  His  vow  seems 
to  point  to  a  deliverance  from  danger  or 
sickness."  ("  Biblical  Commentary.")  This 
Christian  woman  also  rendered  a  most  im- 
portant service  to  the  Christian  Church,  in 
bearing  (if  the  subscription  to  our  Common 
Version  is  true)  this  Epistle,  a  precious  treas- 
ure, safely  to  the  saints  that  were  in  Eome.] 
3,  4.  [Priscilla  is  the  diminutive  of  Prisca. 
and  this  latter  is  the  better-attested  form  in 
the  manuscripts.  Aquila  (the  Greek  form, 
Aquilas,  would  better  distinguish  his  sex) 
and  Priscilla  were  Koman  names,  it  being 
"common  for  Jews  to  assume  such  names  out 
of  Palestine."  (Hackett.)  Other  Latin  names 
mentioned  here  are  Amplias  (Ampliatus), 
Urbanus,  Junia,  Rufus,  and  Julia.  All  the 
rest  are  names  of  Greek  origin.  Juvenal 
called  Rome  a  "Greek  city."  The  name  of 
the  wife,  Priscilla,  is  generally  mentioned 
first  perhaps  on  account  of  her  "  preponderant 
Christian  activity  "  (Meyer),  or,  "relative  su- 
periority." (Hackett.)  None  of  the  persons 
whose  names  now  follow,  save,  perhaps,  that 
of  Rufus,  are  elsewhere  mentioned  in  the  New 
Testament.]  These  persons  [having  been  ex- 
pelled from  Rome  as  Jews,  under  Claudius] 
were  at  Corinth  with  Paul  (Acts  is:  2),  after- 
ward at  Ephesus  (Actsis:  m),  where  they  still 
were  when  Paul  wrote  his  first  letter  to  the 
Corinthians  (1  cor.  16:  19),  now  at  Rome,  and 
later,  still  again  at  Ephesus.     [The  objection 


of  Renan,  that  this  is  "too  nomadic  a  life," 
is  well  answered  by  Bishop  Lightfoot.  See 
"Biblical  Commentary,"  p.  28.]  "When,  and 
where,  and  how  they  had  risked  their  own  lives 
to  save  his,  we  are  not  informed  ;  but  we  have 
the  proof  that  he  was  grateful  for  it,  and  so, 
with  good  reason,  were  all  the  churches  of 
the  Gentiles.  [Who  (since  they,  oinvei) 
laid  down  their  own  necks— not  literally, 
but  as  if  under  the  executioner's  axe.  This, 
probably,  was  at  Ephesus,  where  the  apostle 
fought  with  men  as  with  wild  beasts,  and 
had  the  sentence  of  death  within  himself,  and. 
despaired  even  of  life.  Aquila  was  a  fellow- 
worker  with  Paul  in  tent  making;  but  both 
he  and  Priscilla  were  fellow-workers  with 
him  in  Christ  Jesus.  "  Labor  for  the  gospel 
lives  and  moves  'in  Christ'  as  its  very  ele- 
ment." (Meyer.)  How  much  a  devoted  lay- 
brother,  an  earnest  Christian  sister  in  the 
church,  can  do,  in  sustaining  and  encour- 
aging the  gospel  minister,  and  in  helping  on 
the  cause  of  Christ !  Virtually  they  are 
preachers  of  the  gospel,  though  themselves 
never  occupj'ing  the  "sacred  desk.''] 

5.  It  seems  to  have  been  no  uncommon 
thing  for  brethren  who  had  convenient  dwell- 
ings for  the  purpose  to  open  their  houses  for  the 
assemblies  of  Christian  worshipers;  and  such 
assemblies  are  repeatedly  called  "churches," 
though  probably  not  fully  in  the  technical 
sense  of  that  word.  In  a  large  city  like 
Rome,  such  a  custom  must  have  been  an 
important  convenience.  See  ver.  14,  15;  Col. 
4:  15;  Philem.  2.  [According  to  1  Cor.  16: 
19,  these  two  disciples,  prior  to  this,  had 
opened  their  house  in  Ephesus  for  such 
assemblies.  "It  is  probable,"  says  Dr. 
Hodge,  "that  from  his  occupation  as  tent 
maker,  he  had  better  accommodations  for  the 
meetings  of  the  church  than  most  other 
Christians."     Some   regard   "the  church   in 


1  The  student  will  notice  that  in  the  Trapacrr^Te  and  j  out  a  certain   emphasis."     These  pronouns  are  to  be 


irpo(7Ta<7i<:  of  the  original,  there  is  a  slight  paronomasia. 
Instead  of  Ibe  demonstrative  avrri  (this  one)  of  ourTextus 
Receptus,  the  Revisers  have  the  intensive  pronoun 
avTi),  s/ie  herself,  or,  simply,  she,  as  this  pronoun  is  com- 
monly supposed  to  have  a  weakened  force  in  the  New 
Testament,  though  Winer  thinks  "  it  never  occurs  with- 


distinguished  from  the  contracted  forms,  ouTiij  (for 
eauTfl),  to  herself,  and  auTrj  (for  i)  avrri),  the  same.  But 
these,  and  like  contract  forms  of  pronouns,  are  not  now 
supposed  to  occur,  or,  at  least  but  rarely,  in  the  New 
Testament. — (F.) 


Ch.  XVI.] 


ROMANS. 


305 


5  Likewise  qreel  the  church  that  is  in  their  house. 
Salute  my  well  beloved  Epeuetus,  who  is  the  tirst  fruits 
of  Achaia  unto  Christ. 

6  lireet  Mary,  who  bestowed  much  labour  on  us. 

7  Salute  Audronicus  and  Junia,  luy  kinsmen,  and  my 
fellow  prisoners,  who  are  of  note  among  the  apostles, 
who  also  were  in  Christ  before  nie. 

8  Greet  Amplias,  my  beloved  in  the  Lord. 

y  Salute  Urbane,  our  helper  in  Christ,  and  Stachys 
my  beloved. 


church  that  is  in  their  house.    Salute  Epaenetus  my 
beloved,  who  is  the  tirstfruits  of  Asia  unto  Christ. 

6  Salute  Mary,  who   bestowed   much   labour  on  you. 

7  Salute  Andronicus  and  'Junias,  my  kinsmen,  and 
my  fellow-prisoners,  who  are  of  note  among  the  apos- 

8  ties,  who  also  have  Deen  in  Christ  before  me.    Salute 
0  Ampliatus  my  beloved  in  the  Lord.    Salute  Urbanus 

our  fellow-worker  in  Christ,  and  Stachys  my  beloved. 


their  liouse"  as  the  Christian  members  of  the 
family;  but  this  seems  improbable.  Justin 
Martyr  speaks  of  Christians  assembling  at 
his  house,  when  he  was  at  Rome,  for  pur- 
poses of  instruction.  See  Alford.]  Instead 
of  Achaia,  we  should  read  "Asia,"  on  the 
authority  of  the  best  manuscripts.  [This 
'Asia'  is  Proconsular,  or  lesser  Asia,  on  the 
western  coast  of  Asia  Minor.  In  1  Cor.  16: 
15,  it  is  stated  that  the  house  of  Stephanas 
was  the  first  fruits  of  Achaia  ;  so  that  if  Achaia 
was  here  the  genuine  reading,  we  might  rea- 
sonably suppose  that  Epenetus  belonged  to 
this  'house,'  or,  at  least,  that  he  was  one  of 
the  earliest  converts  in  that  country.] 

6.  Greet  Mary,  Avho.  [The  compound 
relative  here  has  the  force  of:  for  she,  or,  since 
she.  See  notes  on  1 :  25,  and  for  similar  com- 
pounds in  this  chapter,  see  ver.  4.  7,  12.]  Who 
this  person  was  and  where  she  bestowed  her 
much  labour  or  toil  on  us — that  is,  on  Paul 
and  his  fellow-laborers  (or,  according  to  the 
more  approved  reading  on  "you" — that  is,  on 
the  disciples  at  Rome),  must  remain  unknown 
to  us.  The  pronouns,  'you'  and  'us'  differ  in 
Greek  only  by  a  single  vowel,  and  the  pro- 
nunciation of  these  two  vowels  was  very  simi- 
lar (in  the  modern  Greek,  precisely  identical) ; 
so  that  they  would  be  verj^  easily  confounded 
with  each  other,  especially  in  copying  from 
dictation.  The  manuscripts  show  that  these 
pronouns  were  often  interchanged.  [The  name 
'  Mary  '  (Hebrew,  Miriam)  indicates  her  Jew- 
ish descent.  No  doubt  'us'  instead  of  'you' 
was  the  original  reading,  as  "elsewhere  the 
apostle  always  brings  out  prominently  the 
relations  of  the  persons  saluted  to  his  own 
labors."  (Lange.)  The  aorist  tense  of  the 
verb  possibly  indicates  that  she  performed  no 
long-continued  but  some  special  act  of  service. 
Paul  mentions  four  females  in  this  chapter 
who  labored  or  toiled  much  in  the  Lord.] 

7.  Whether  the  nominative  of  lounian  is 
Junias,  a  man,  or  Junia,  a  woman,  is  uncer- 


tain. If  the  latter,  as  Chrysostom  thought, 
with  whom  some  modern  commentators  agree, 
she  was  probably  the  wife,  or  perhaps  the 
si-ster,  of -Andronicus.  But  the  prevalent  oi)in- 
ion  is  that  the  name  is  of  the  masculine  gender. 
My  kinsmen — not  merely  in  the  national,  but 
in  the  more  personal  sense.  [Si.x  persons  in 
this  chapter  are  called  by  Paul,  his  kinsmen.] 
My  fellow  prisoners — where  and  when  can 
only  be  conjectured.  Clement  of  Rome  says 
that  Paul  was  seven  times  in  prison;  compare 
2  Cor.  11  :  23,  "  in  prisons  more  abundantly." 
Of  note  among  the  apostles.  Honorably 
known  by  the  apostles,  is  all  the  expres.sion 
necessarily  involves;  not  that  they  themselves 
were  reckoned  as  apostles.  Who  also  were 
in  Christ  before  me  ["entered  the  fellow- 
ship of  Christ."  (Meyer.)  Alford  says:  "In 
the  use  of  the  perfect  there  is  a  mixed  con- 
struction— '  who  have  been  longer  than  me,' 
and,' who  we?'e  before  me.'  "]  Paul  was  not  the 
^?-s<  among  the  kindred  to  which  he  belonged, 
to  believe  in  Christ.  It  is  generally  thought 
that  Paul's  conversion  took  place  about  three 
or  four  years  after  the  crucifixion  of  Christ. 
[Paul  elsewhere  confesses  himself  to  be  "  the 
least  of  the  ai)ostle.s,"  and  here  he  says  he 
was  not  the  first  of  his  kindred  to  become  a 
Christian.  Possibly  the  two  persons  named 
were  converted  at  the  Pentecost  and  were  the 
real  founders  of  the  Roman  Church.  A  few 
manuscripts  make  the  who  (by  the  use  of  to??) 
refer  to  the  apostles,  a  mistaken  reference.] 
8,  9.  Greet  Amplias.  This  is  an  abbre- 
viation for  Ampliatus,  which  is  the  form  as 
found  in  several  of  the  oldest  manuscripts. 
[In  like  manner,  Lucas  was  contracted  from 
Lucanus,  Silas  from  Silvanus,  etc.]  My  be- 
loved in  the  Lord — whom  I  love  as  a  Chris- 
tian. Urbane  is  the  name  of  a  man  and  not 
of  a  woman,  as  the  form  of  the  name  in  Eng- 
lish might  seem  to  intimate.  Our  helper  in 
Christ.  This  L^rbanus  or  Urban,  seems  to 
have  rendered  some  assistance  to  the  Roman 


U 


506 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  XVI. 


10  Salute  Appelles  approved  in  Christ.    Salute  them  I  10  Salute  Apelles  the  approved  in  Christ.    Salute  them 
tvhich  are  of  Aristobulus' AoiiseAoW.  who    are   of  \he  kousehold   of  Aristobulus.    Salute 

1 1  Salute  Herodion  luy  kinsman.    Greet  them  that  be    11  Herodion  my  kinsman.    Salute  them  of  the  household 
of  the  household  of  Narcissus,  which  are  in  the  Lord.        | 


disciples  as  well  as  to  Paul — our  fellow  worker. 
And  Stachys  my  beloved.  In  this  instance, 
he  does  not  add  :  '  in  the  Lord,'  as  he  does  in 
most  cases;  yet  doubtless  'Stachys'  was  also 
a  disciple  and  was  loved,  like  the  rest,  with 
Christian  atfection.  [Ampliatus,  Urbanus, 
Stachys,  Apelles,  Tryphena,  Tryphosa,  Rufus, 
Hermes,  Patrobas  (or,  Patrobius),  Hernias, 
Philologus,  Julia,  Nereus,  "are  found  in  the 
sepulchral  inscriptions  on  the  Appian  way,  as 
the  names  of  persons  connected  with  '  Caesar's 
household,'  and  contemporary  with  St.  Paul." 
("Biblical  Commentary.")  Some  of  these 
names  were  very  common  in  thatageand  coun- 
try, others  were  comparatively  rare.  "  At  all 
events,"  says  Bishop  Lightfoot,  "this  investi- 
gation (of  names)  will  not  have  been  useless, 
if  it  has  shown  that  the  names  and  allusions 
at  the  close  of  the  Roman  Epistle  are  in  keep- 
ing with  the  circumstances  of  the  metropolis 
in  St.  Paul's  day  ;  for  thus  it  will  have  sup- 
plied an  answer  to  two  foi'ms  of  objection  ;  the 
one  denying  the  genuineness  of  the  last  two 
chapters  of  this  letter,  and  the  other,  allowing 
their  genuineness,  but  detaching  the  saluta- 
tions from  the  rest,  and  assigning  them  to 
another  Epistle."  Dr.  Gilford  in  the  "  Bibli- 
cal Commentary,"  supposes  these  salutations 
belonged  to  a  second  letter  to  the  Romans. 
But  this  and  other  suppositions  which  have 
been  made,  create  more  difficulty  than  they 
remove.  The  constant  intercourse  between 
Rome  and  the  East,  and  Paul's  protracted 
labors  in  all  the  latter  region — giving  him 
large  opportunities  for  becoming  acquainted 
with  brethren  from  Romeor  brethren  visiting 
Rome  —  furnish  sufficient  explanation  of  the 
many  salutations  which  he  sends  to  the  Roman 
Church.] 

10.  Of  all  those  named,  from  the  fifth  verse 
to  the  tenth  inclusive,  nothing  is  known  except 
what  is  here  recorded.  Apelles  must  not  be 
confounded,  as  he  has  been  by  some  of  the 
ancients  and  by  Grotius  among  the  moderns, 
with  Apollos  mentioned  in  Acts  18:  24;  19:  1, 
and  in  several  other  places.  [When  Horace 
("Sat."  1,  v.,  100),  speaking  of  some  supersti- 
tion, says :  "  The  Jew  Apella  may  believe  this, 
not  I,"  he  seems  to  make  this  name  stand  for  a 


typal  Jew.]  Approved  in  Christ— a  Chris- 
tian, proved  by  trial.  Aristobulus'  house- 
hold—them which  belong  to  Aristobulus. 
The  word  household  is  not  in  the  original. 
[Yet  the  original  shows  us  that  not  all  the 
dependents  of  Aristobulus  were  saluted,  but 
only  some  of  them — namely,  those,  as  we 
must  suppose,  who  were  '  in  Christ.'  The  same 
holds  true  of  the  household  of  Narcissus  in  the 
next  verse  as  is  there  expressly  stated.]  Why 
is  no  salutation  sent  to  Aristobulus  himself? 
Because  he  was  no  Christian,  answers  Meyer, 
unless  he  had  previously  died,  in  which  case 
he  may  have  been  a  Christian.  But  why  may 
he  not  have  been  a  Christian  still  living,  but 
known  by  Paul  to  have  been  at  this  time 
absent  from  Rome?  There  is  room  for  a  sup- 
position, not  less  plausible  than  either  of  those 
named  by  Meyer,  and  much  more  interesting 
and  not  destitute  of  some  historical  support. 
Rev.  John  Williams  (1811-1861),  in  his  "Ec- 
clesiastical Antiquities  of  Cymry,"  says  :  "Ar- 
wystli,  a  man  of  Italy,"  is  mentioned  in  the 
"Welsh  Genealogies  of  the  Saints,"  as  one  of 
four  Christian  missionaries,  who  accompanied 
Bran,  the  first  Welsh  Christian  (converted 
while  a  captive  in  Rome)  on  his  return  to  his 
native  country.  This  Arwystli  is  supposed  to 
be  the  same  person  as  Aristobulus,  mentioned 
in  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  The  forma- 
tion of  the  name  from  the  Greek  would  be  in 
perfect  accordance  with  the  analogy  of  the 
Welsh  language.  But  what  adds  the  greatest 
support  to  this  hypothesis  is  the  fact  that  in 
the  Greek  menology  Aristobulus  is  said  to 
have  been  ordained  by  Paul  as  a  bishop  for  the 
Britons.  In  this  case  the  Greeks  and  the 
Welsh  are  witnesses  wholly  independent  of 
each  other,  so  that  collusion  is  out  of  the  ques- 
tion. See  "  Bibliotheca  Sacra,"  October,  1875, 
pp.  656,  657.  [There  was  also  an  Aristobulus, 
grandson  of  Herod  the  Great,  who  lived  at 
Rome  and  was  an  intimate  friend  of  Claudius. 
Some  have  supposed  that  his  household  (slaves) 
may  have  been  bequeathed  by  him  to  the  em- 
peror, and  that  these  may  have  formed  a  part 
of  'Caesar's  household.'     (rhii.4:22.)] 

11.    Of  Herodion   [a   name  formed  from 
Herod,  like  Caesarion  from  Caesar],  the  kins- 


Ch.  XVI.] 


ROMANS. 


307 


12  Salute  Tryphena  and  Tryphosa,  who  labour  in  the 
Lord.  Salute  the  beloved  Persis,  which  laboured  much 
in  the  Lord. 

13  Salute  liufus  chosen  in  the  Lord,  and  his  mother 
and  luiiie. 

14  Salute  A.syncritus,  Phlcgon,  Hennas,  Patrobas, 
Hermes,  and  the  brethren  which  are  with  them. 

15  Salute  Philologus,  and  Julia^  Nereus,  and  his 
sister,  and  Olympas,  and  all  the  saints  which  are  with 
them. 


12  of  Narci-ssus,  who  are  in  the  Lord.  Salute  Tryphiena 
and  Tryphosa,  who  labour  in  the  Lord.  Salute  Per- 
sis  the  beloved,  who   laboured    much    in  the   Lord. 

13  Salute  Rufus  the  chosen  in  the  Lord,  and  his  mother 

14  and  mine.  Salute  Asyncritus,  Phlegon,  Hermes, 
Patrobas,  Herma.s,  and 'the  brethren  that  are  with 

15  them.  Salute  Philologus  and  Julia,  Nereus  and  his 
sister,  and  Olympas,  and  all  the  saints  that  are  with 


man  of  Paul,  we  know  nothing  further.  Nar- 
cissus, a  froedtnan  and  favorite  of  Chiudius, 
say  Grotius,  Micliaelis,  and  Neander;  but  this 
Narcissus  was  executed  in  the  beginning  of 
Nero's  reign— about  a.  d.  55.  (Tacitus  "An- 
na!." 13:  L)  But  his  family  may  have  been 
designated,  as  they  are  here,  after  his  death. 
It  is  more  probable,  however,  that  this  was 
another  Narcissus,  a  favorite  of  Nero,  put  to 
death  afterward  by  Galba. 

13.  Tryphena  and  Tryphosa  were  prob- 
ably sisters.  Meyer  conjectures  that  these  and 
the  beloved  Persis  were  deaconesses.  The 
first  two  are  described  as  laboring  in  the  Lord 
by  a  present  participle  [while  their  names  de- 
note those  who  live  voluptuously].  The  last 
is  mentioned  as  having  toiled  much,  by  a  verb 
in  the  past  tense.  Perhaps  she  was  unable 
now  to  work,  through  illness  or  age.  [The 
name  '  Persis '  was  probably  derived  from  the 
country  of  Persia,  just  as  Lydia  denotes  a 
Lydian,  etc.  Commentators  note  the  delicacy 
of  the  apostle  in  here  employing  'the'  and 
not  my  before  'beloved,'  the  'my  beloved' 
being  seemly  only  when  referring  to  men,  as 
in  ver.  5,  8,  9.  The  apostle's  frequent  com- 
mendation of  females  who  abounded  in  their 
Christian  labors,  toiling  not  only  much,  but, 
as  the  verb  implies,  laboriously,  makes  it  evi- 
dent tliat  he  would  not  restrict  them  from  the 
most  abundant  Christian  activity.] 

13.  This  Rufus  may  have  been  the  one 
mentioned  in  Mark  15:  21 ;  but  the  name  was 
a  common  one.  Chosen  [literally,  elect]  in 
the  Lord.  As  this  might,  in  a  general  sense, 
be  said  of  every  Christian,  the  special  appli- 
cation of  it  to  Rufus  implies  peculiar  excel- 
lence— a  choice  Christian.  And  his  mother 
and  mine.  '  His,'  naturally  ;  '  mine,'  by  her 
motherly  care  and  my  filial  respect  and  grati- 
tude. If  the  suggestion  above,  in  regard  to 
'  Rufus,'  is  correct,  his  mother  was  the  wife  of 
that  Simon  who  bore  the  Saviour's  cross. 
We  know  nothing  of  the  time  or  manner  in 
which  she  had  shown  motherly  kindness  to 
the  apostle;  but  there  is  a  grateful  emphasis 


[the  pronoun  'mine'  being  emphatic  by  form 
and  position],  and  a  graceful  delicacy  in  the 
way  in  which  he  here  acknowledges  the  obli- 
gation. ["  Let  us  remark,  in  closing,  the  ex- 
quisite delicacy  and  courtesy  which  guide  the 
apostle  in  those  distinguishing  epitliets  with 
which  he  accompanies  the  names  of  the  ser- 
vants or  handmaids  of  Christ,  whom  he  men- 
tions. Each  of  those  descriptive  titles  is,  as  it 
were,  the  rough  draft  of  the  new  name  which 
those  persons  shall  bear  in  glory."  (Godet. )] 
14,  15.  These  ten  persons  [perhaps  less  noted 
than  the  preceding,  since  they  have  no  hono- 
rary epithets]  are  grouped  into  two  equal  com- 
panies, other  unnamed  persons  being  added  to 
each  company  and  embraced  in  the  common 
.salutation — in  the  first  case  under  the  designa- 
tion brethren,  in  the  second  case  with  the 
title  saints.  These  were  probably  persons 
accustomed  to  meet  with  those  named  for  re- 
ligious worship.  Compare  ver.  5.  The  Her- 
nias mentioned  in  ver.  14  was  not,  as  Origen 
believed,  the  author  of  the  book  called  the 
"Shepherd  of  Hernias,"  in  the  collection  at- 
tributed to  the  "Apostolical  Fathers'";  for 
that  book  belongs  to  a  later  age,  and  was  prob- 
ably written  by  another  Hernias,  brother  of 
Pius  I.,  Bishop  of  Rome,  about  the  year  150. 
[Winer  thinks  that  Hernias  is  probably  a  con- 
traction for  Hermodoros,  as  Olj'mpas  for 
Olumpiodorus.]  It  is  uncertain  whether  the 
loidian  of  ver.  15  was  a  man  (Julias)  or  a 
woman  (Julia).  If  the  latter,  she  was  proba- 
bly the  wife  of  Philologus,  and  this  is  rendered 
somewhat  more  probable  by  the  mention  of 
Nereus,  and  his  sister  immediately  after. 
[This  closes  the  apostle's  personal  greetings. 
That  Peter's  name  does  not  appear  in  this  long 
catalogue  shows  that  he  was  not  then  in  Rome, 
otherwise  he  would  have  been  saluted  first  of 
all.  It  is  pleasant  to  think,  and  it  certainly  is 
highly  probable,  that  some  of  these  beloved 
Roman  saints,  whose  names  have  now  passed 
under  review,  formed  a  part  of  the  two  bands 
who,  some  three  years  later,  went  out  on  the 
Appian  way — the  one  thirty  miles  to  the  Tres 


308 


ROMANS. 


[Gh.  XVI. 


16  Salute  one  another  with  a  holy  kiss.  The  churches  I  16  them.  Salute  one  another  with  a  holy  kiss.  All  the 
of  Christ  salute  you.  churches  of  Christ  salute  you. 

17  Now  I  beseech  you,  brethren,  mark  them  which  17  Now  I  beseech  you,  brethren,  mark  them  that  are 
cause  divisions  and  otl'ences  contrary  to  the  doctrine  causing  the  divisions  and  occasions  of  stumbling 
which  ye  have  learned;  and  avoid  them.                              I       contrary   to  the  'doctrine   which  ye  learned:  and 


1  Or,  teaching. 


Tabernce,  and  the  other  forty  miles  to  the 
Appii  Forum,  to  meet  this  their  beloved  apos- 
tle, now  coming  to  them  as  Christ's  "ambas- 
sador in  chains."  No  wonder  that  at  such  an 
exhibition  of  Christian  sympathy  and  love  the 
apostle  "thanked  God  and  took  courage,"  and 
that  here  at  length  his  soul  was  filled  with 
"joy,"  and  his  tired  spirit  found  "rest."] 

16.  [The  greetings  which  Paul  has  to  offer 
from  himself  hoAug  concluded,  he  now  desires 
that  his  readers  should  exchange  greetings 
with  one  another.  (Meyer.)]  The  salutation 
with  a  kiss  was  a  common  custom,  as  it  still  is 
among  many  Oriental  nations,  with  men  as 
well  as  women,  like  hand-shaking  with  us. 
Compare  Matt.  26 :  49 ;  Mark  14  :  45 ;  Luke  7  : 
45;  15:20;  Acts  20:37.  See  similar  injunc- 
tions in  1  Cor.  16:20;  2  Cor.  13:12;  1  Thess. 
5  :  26 ;  1  Peter  5  :  14.  With  (in)  a  holy  kiss. 
[The  preposition  is  commonly  supposed  to  be 
used  either  of  accompaniment  or  of  instru- 
ment. It  properly  marks  the  kiss  as  that  in 
which  the  salutation  consisted.]  It  was  an 
early  custom,  as  we  learn  from  Justin  Martyr, 
TertuUian,  and  the  so-called  "Apostolical 
Constitutions,"  at  the  close  of  the  prayer 
before  the  Lord's  Supper,  for  the  disciples  to 
exchange  this  salutation  [the  osculum  pacis  o? 
TertuUian]  with  one  another,  men  with  men, 
and  women  with  women.  As  a  general  cus- 
tom, it  was  probably  early  laid  aside.  Some 
small  sections  of  the  church  still  retain  it. 
Paul  calls  it  'holy'  because  it  was  an  expres- 
sion of  the  holy  Christian  fellowship  of  love. 
The  churches  of  Christ  salute  you.  It 
was  no  secret  that  Paul  wished  and  intended 
to  visit  Kome.  See  Acts  19  :  21.  And  per- 
haps it  was  widely  known  among  the  churches 
that  he  was  writing  to  the  disciples  there  about 
this  time,  in  wliich  case  it  would  be  natural 
for  them  to  send  their  Christian  greeting 
through  him.  [We  may  also  say  that  Paul 
kneiv,  by  his  intercourse  with  the  churches, 
that  they  were  minded  to  send  their  love  to 
the  brethren  that  were  in  Kome.]  The  word 
all  is  prefixed  to  'the  churches'  by  Tischen- 
dorf  [Westcott  and  Hort,  and  the  Revisers], 


and  this  reading  is  well  sustained.  At  the 
close  of  these  salutations,  the  apostle  inserts  a 
solemn  warning  against  those  erroneous  teach- 
ers who  cause  divisions,     (ver.  17-20.) 

17.  I  beseech  you.  An  expression  denot- 
ing the  importance  of  the  admonition  and 
Paul's  earnestness  in  it.  Mark  them  Avhich 
cause  (the)  divisions  and  offences — or, 
watch  them  closely.  [These  may  include  both 
Judaizing  teachers  and  Gentile  converts,  per- 
haps the  latter  especially,  as  being  more  nat- 
urally inclined  to  Epicurean  sensualism,  or 
serving  their  own  belly.  We  think,  with  most 
expositors,  that  "Paul  is  not  here  speaking 
against  such  as  already  were  actually  making 
divisions  in  Rome."  On  the  contrary,  he 
commends  in  highest  terms  their  faith  and 
their  obedience.  Ver.  19;  see  1:8.  Paul, 
writing  from  Corinth,  where  the  church  had 
been  so  distracted  by  parties,  might  very  nat- 
urally give  such  counsel  to  any  church.  TAe 
divisions'  refer  to  such  as  were  well  known  to 
the  readers — divisions  "which  at  that  time 
arose  in  so  many  quarters  in  Pauline  churches 
and  might  readily  threaten  the  Romans  also." 
(Meyer.)  At  a  later  period,  these  divisions 
may  have  actually  commenced  at  Rome.  See 
Phil.  1  :  15-17  ;  3  :  18.]  Contrary  to  the 
doctrine  which  ye  have  learned.  [This 
"'doctrine'  must  have  been  what  we  call 
Pauline,  the  pure  gospel  doctrine  of  Christ."] 
Heresy  and  schism  are  closely  connected. 
False  doctrine  cannot  be  preached  among 
those  knowing  and  loving  the  truth  without 
causing  divisions  and  oftenses,  and  those  who 
seek,  from  ambitious  and  selfish  motives,  to 
make  divisions  and  "to  draw  away  disciples 
after  them,"  are  wont  to  devise  some  new  and 
false  doctrine  as  a  means  of  accomplishing 
their  object.  (Act»20:3o.)  Avoid  them.  He 
does  not  say  "confute  them"  [or,  hold  a 
public  discussion  with  them  (Boise)],  but  turn 
away  from  them.  "  Bow  ye  away  from  them," 
is  WicliflFe's  translation  of  the  expression. 
Compare  2  Thess.  3 :  6 ;  1  Tim.  6:5;  Titus  3  :  10, 
[Tischendorf,  and  Westcott  and  Hort  have  the 
present  tense — turn  ^-e  ever  away  from  them.j 


Ch.  XVI.] 


ROMANS. 


309 


18  For  they  that  are  such  serve  not  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  but  their  own  belly  ;  and  by  good  words  and  fair 
speeches  deceive  the  hearts  of  the  simple. 

19  For  your  ulieilieiiee  is  come  al)road  unto  all  men. 
I  am  glad  therefore  on  your  behalf:  but  yet  I  would 
have  you  wise  unto  that  which  is  good,  and  simple  con- 
cerning evil. 

21)  And  the  God  of  peace  shall  bruise  Satan  under 
your  feet  shortly.  The  grace  of  our  J^ord  Jesus  Christ 
bi:  with  you.     Amen. 

21  Timotheus  my  workfellow,  and  Lucius,  and  Jason, 
and  Sosipater,  my  kinsmen,  salute  you. 


18  turn  aw'ay  from  them.  For  they  that  are  such  serve 
notour  llord  Christ,  but  their  own  belly;  and  by 
their  smooth  and  fair  speech  they  beguile  the  hearts 

19  of  the  innocents.  For  your  obedince  is  come  abroad 
unto  all  men.  I  rejoice  therefore  over  you :  but  I 
W'ould  have  you  wise  unto  that  which  i.s  good,  and 

20  simple  unto  that  which  is  evil.  And  the  God  of 
peace  shall  bruise  Satan  under  your  feet  shortly. 

The  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  be  with  you. 

21  Timothy    my    fellow-worker   saluteth    you ;    and 


18,  19.  [For  they  that  are  such— liter- 
ally,/or  <Ae  such  persons.]  These  makers  of 
divisions  and  olfenses,  however  fair  and  fine 
their  pretensions  and  speeches  might  be,  were 
not  sincerely  serving  Christ,  but  rather  serving 
their  own  sensual  and  selfish  ends.  And  the 
aim  of  all  their  kind  and  plausible  words  is 
only  to  deceive  those  innocent  ones  who,  being 
without  guile  themselves,  are  slow  to  suspect 
it  in  others.'  But  I  do  not  expect  that  you 
will  be  so  easily  deceived,  for  your  obedi- 
ence (to  the  gospel)  is  come  abroad  unto 
all  men.  Respecting  you,  therefore,  I  have 
confidence  and  joy.  Now  my  wish  concern- 
ing you  is  tliat  you  may  be  wise  unto  {in 
reference  to)  that  which  is  good,  and  sim- 
ple concerning  evil,  pure  from  all  admix- 
ture with  it.  The  word  here  translated  'sim- 
ple' [that  which  is  without  foreign  admixture, 
hence  in  a  "true  and  natural  condition" 
(Trench)]  is  the  same  which  is  translated 
harmless  in  Phil.  2:15  and  in  Matt.  10:16. 
["  Be  wise  as  serpents  and  harmless  as  doves." 
It  requires,  methinks,  great  prudence  and 
grace  to  blend  tliis  serpent-wisdom  and  dove- 
liarmlessr^ess  together.  INIeyer  sees  in  this 
verse  "a  delicate  combination  of  warning 
with  the  expression  of  firm  confidence."] 

20.  The  God  of  peace  [  "the  God  of 
whom  peace  is  a  characterizing  attribute" 
(Ellicott)],  so  named  in  contrast  with  the 
makers  of  divisions.  Shall  bruise  Satan, 
whose  servants  and  emissaries  these  authors  of 
strifes  and  oflfenses  are.  [We  are  taught  here 
and  elsewhere  in  the  Scriptures  that  it  is  not 
the  Virgin  Mary  who  shall  bruise  the  serpent's 
head,  as  the  Decree  on  the  Immaculate  Con- 


ception (enacted  December  8th,  1854)  declares, 
but  the  'God  of  peace,'  or  he  who  is  the  seed 
of  the  woman,  the  Son  of  Mary  and  the  Son  of 
God.  A  very  few  authorities  have  here  the  verb 
in  the  optative  mood  :  May  the  God  of  peace 
crush  Satan,  etc.]  Under  your  feet  shortly. 
Your  conflict  shall  not  be  long;  your  victory 
shall  be  speedy  and  complete.  [This  '  shortly,' 
according  to  Godet,  denotes,  not  the  nearness 
of  the  event,  but  the  celerity  or  quickness  with 
which  it  shall  be  accomplished.]  There  is  an 
apparent  allusion  here  to  Gen.  3:15.  Every 
triumph  of  the  Christian  or  of  the  church  over 
the  disturbers  of  their  peace  is  a  part  and  proof 
of  Christ's  victory  over  Satan.  The  brief  dox- 
ology  which  follows  seems  again  to  close  tho 
Epistle.  But  the  apostle  has  still  some  salu- 
tations to  add  and  a  more  formal  doxology  to 
follow.  This  apparently  broken  and  renewed 
conclusion  is  a  characteristic  of  this  Epistle 
[as  also  of  several  other  of  his  letters.  See 
Phil.  4  :  20,  seq. ;  2  Tiiess.  3  :  16,  seq. ;  1  Tim. 
6:16,  seq.;  2  Tim.  4:18,  seq.] 

21.  Timothy's  name  is  joined  with  Paul's  in 
the  superscription  of  five  of  his  letters.  See  2 
Cor.  1:1;  Phil.  1:1;  Col.  1 :  1 ;  1  Thess.  1 :  1 ;  2 
Thess.  1 :  1.  [On  Timothy's  long  and  intimate 
acquaintance  with  Paul,  see  Farrar's  "Life 
of  St.  Paul,"  page  260.]  But  he  may  not 
have  been  with  the  apostle  when  this  Epistle 
was  begun,  or  the  apostle  may  have  had  some 
other  good  reason  for  not  inserting  his  name 
at  the  beginning.  [According  to  Meyer, 
"Paul  deemed  it  suitable  to  appear  with  his 
Epistle  before  the  Roman  Church,  to  which 
he  was  still  so  strange,  in  all  his  unique  and 
undivided  ai)ostolical    authority."      Lucius 


1  In  the  MSS.  D  E  F  G,  the  word  rendered  '  fair 
speeches'  (most  frequently  trailslated  blessing)  is  want- 
ing, being  omitted,  according  to  Meyer,  "  through  the 
homceoteleuton,"  or  mistake  arising  from  similar  end- 
ings of  connected  words.  The  for  in  ver.  19  seems  to 
assign  a  reason  for  the  above  exhortation,  their  obedi- 
ence to  the  faith  furnishing  a  ground  of  confidence  that 
they  will  heed  the  exhortation.    The  yow  in  the  phrase, 


Ihe-of-you-obedience,  is  thought  by  some  to  be  emphatic 
as  contrasted  with  the  simple.  Buttmann  (p.  117)  says 
that  this  intermediate  position  of  the  pronoun  is  pecu- 
liar to  the  style  of  Paul.  Its  regular  position  would  be 
before  tlie  article  or  after  the  substantive,  save  when 
some  adjective  or  adverbial  limitation  stands  between 
them.— (F.) 


310 


EOMANS. 


[Ch.  XVI. 


22  I  Tertius,  who  wrote  this  epistle,  salute  you  in  the 
Lord. 

23  Gaius  mine  host,  and  of  the  whole  church,  saliiteth 
you.  Erastus  the  chamberlain  of  the  city  saluteth  you, 
and  Quartus  a  brother. 

24  The  grace  of  oar  Lord  Jesus  Christ  he  with  you  all. 
Amen. 


22  Lucius  and  Jason  and  Sosipater,  my  kinsmen.  I 
Tertius,  i  who  write  the  epistle,  salute  you   in  the 

2.3  Lord.  Gaius  my  host,  and  of  the  whole  church, 
saluteth  you.  Erastus  the  treasurer  of  the  city 
saluteth  you,  and  Quartus  the  brother.2 


1  Or,  who  write  the  epistle  in  the  Lord,  salute  you 2  Some  ancient  authorities  insert  here  ver.  'H,  The  grace  of  c 

Christ  be  with  you  all.    Amen,  and  omit  tbe  like  words  in  ver.  20. 


is  probably  "Lucius  of  Cyrene,"  mentioned 
in  Acts  13:  1;  certainly  not  Luke  the  evan- 
gelist, whose  name  is  spelt  differently  [Loukas, 
Lucas,  or  Lucanus],  and  who  is  never  called 
Paul's  kinsman.  [Jason,  a  Grsecised  name 
for  Jesus,  "perhaps  identical  with  Jason  of 
Thessalonica."  (Philippi.)  See  Acts  17:  5, 
seq.]  Sosipater  is  probably  the  same  who 
i§  mentioned  as  a  Berean,  his  name  being 
abbreviated  to  "Sopater,"  in  Acts  20:  4. 

22.  I  Tertius,  who  wrote  this  epistle, 
salute  you  in  the  Lord.  The  name,  'Ter- 
tius,' is  a  Roman  name;  and  probably  this 
man,  who  is  not  mentioned  elsewhere,  was  a 
"Roman.  The  apostle  was  accustomed  to  em- 
ploy an  amanuensis,  writing  only  the  closing 
salutation  with  his  own  hand.  See  1  Cor. 
16:  21;  Col.  4:  18;  2  Thess.  3:  17.  It  was 
appropriate  that  a  Eoman  scribe  s^hould  be 
selected  to  write  this  epistle  at  Paul's  dicta- 
tion. That  he  should  use  the  first  person  in 
sending  his  own  salutation,  if  not  quite  regu- 
lar, was  quite  natural.  ["It  would  have  been 
altogether  unseemly  for  Paul  to  send  the 
salutation  from  Tertius  as  from  a  third  per- 
son, while  the  latter  himself  wrote  it  down." 
(Philippi.)  Meyer  sui)poses  that  the  Roman 
Christians  might  be  acquainted  with  Tertius, 
who  was  probably  an  Italian  ;  but  it  seems  to 
me  that  the  amanuensis  of  such  a  letter  to 
such  a  people,  would  naturally  feel  interested 
in  them,  even  though  not  personally  ac- 
quainted.] 

23.  Gaius  (in  Latin,  Caius)  is  probably 
the  same  whom  Paul  baptized  (icor.  i:  u),  and 
may  be  the  same  with  the  one  mentioned  in 
Acts  20:  4  (Gaius  of  Derbe) ;  but  the  name 
is  so  common  that  we  cannot  be  sure  of  the 
identity.  See  Acts  19:  29;  3  John  1.  Mine 
host.  His  house  was  Paul's  home  while  this 
Epistle  was  penned  [as  that  of  Aquila,  and, 
perhaps,  of  Justus,  had  been  on  a  previous 
occasion.  (Acts  18: 1-7.)  This  word  means  guest 
as  well  as  host.]  And  of  the  whole  church. 
The  most  natural  interpretation  of  these  words 


is,  that  the  church  was  accustomed  to  hold  its 
meetings  in  Gaius'  house;  or  they  may  mean, 
as  Meyer  suggests,  that  in  consequence  of  his 
having  the  apostle  for  a  guest,  his  house  was 
the  frequent  resort  of  the  Corinthian  disciples 
in  general.  Erastus,  the  chamberlain  of 
the  city — or  the  city  treasurer  (of  the  city  of 
Corinth),  commonly  identified  with  the  one 
mentioned  in  Acts  19:  22,  and  2  Tim.  4:  20; 
but  the  per.son  mentioned  in  these  two  places 
seems  to  have  been  one  of  Paul's  traveling 
assistants,  which  could  hardly  be  reconciled 
with  his  holding  the  office  here  ascribed  to 
him.  It  is  possible,  to  be  sure,  that  he  may 
have  afterward  laid  down  that  oflBce  to  join 
Paul  in  his  evangelical  journeys  and  labors, 
and  be  described  here  as  having  held  it,  or, 
perhaps,  as  still  holding  it  at  the  time  the 
Epistle  was  written  ;  but  the  name  was  not  so 
unusual  as  to  require  this  somewhat  forced 
supposition.  At  any  rate,  this  case  would  be 
rather  an  exceptional  one  among  the  disciples, 
according  to  what  the  apostle  writes  to  the 
Corinthians  (i  cor.  i :  26) :  ["  Not  many  mighty." 
Bengel  remarks  that  "  the  faith  of  a  most  in- 
fluential man  must  have  been  a  source  of  joy 
to  the  Romans."]  Quartus,  a  brother,  is 
described  by  no  more  particular  designation  ; 
but  whether  personally  known  or  not  to  the 
disciples  in  Rome,  he  wished  to  join  with  those 
mentioned  above  in  sending  to  them  his  broth- 
erly greeting.  [Comparatively  unknown  and 
insignificant  he  may  have  been,  yet  his  Chris- 
tian faith,  in  connection  with  but  a  possibly 
accidental  and  momentary  interview  with  the 
apostle,  has  gained  for  his  name  what  many 
seek  and  will  not  secure — an  earthly  immor- 
tality. Dr.  Hackett,  however,  thinks  that  his 
being  entitled  the  brother  (not  '  a  brother,'  as 
in  our  Common  Version)  "implies  that  he 
was  well  known  to  the  Roman  Christians."] 

V.  CoNCLUsioK.     (Ver.  24-27.) 

(a)  Benediction. 

24.  This  verse  is  not  found  in  the  four  oldest 
manuscripts,  n  A  B  C.     It  is  probably  copied 


Ch.  XVI.] 


ROMANS. 


311 


25  Now  to  hiiu  that  is  of  power  to  stablish  you  accord- 
ing to  luy  gospel,  and  the  preaching  of  Jesus  Christ, 
according  to  the  revelation  of  the  mystery,  which  was 
kept  secret  since  the  world  began, 

2fi  Hut  now  is  made  manifest,  and  by  the  Scriptures 
of  the  prophets,  according  to  the  commandment  of  the 
everlasting  (Jod.  made  known  to  all  nations  for  the 
obedience  of  faitn : 


25  1  Now  to  him  that  is  able  to  stablish  you  accord- 
ing to  my  gospel  and  the  preaching  of  Jesus  Christ, 
according  to   the   revelation  of  the  mystery  which 

26  hath  been  kept  in  silence  through  times  eternal,  but 
now  is  manifested,  and  ^by  tue  scriptures  of  the 
prophets,  according  to  the  commandment  of  the 
eternal  God,  is  made  known  unto  all  the  nations 


.  Some  aucieal  authorities  omit  ver.  25-'^7.     Compare  the  eDd  of  ch.  xiv 2  Gr.  through. 


from  ver.  20,  and  well  omitted  by  critical 
editors  generally.  [It  is  defended,  however, 
by  Meyer  and  Fritzsche.] 

(6)  Doxolociy. 

25-27.  [With  this  doxology  compare  the 
benediction  of  Jude  (ver.  21,  io),  which  strongly 
resembles  this  in  some  points.  "Asa  final, 
complete  conclusion,  we  have  now  this  dox- 
ology, rich  in  contents,  deep  in  feeling  (per- 
liaps  added  by  the  apostle's  own  liand),  in 
which  the  leading  ideas  contained  in  the 
whole  Ejiistle  .  .  .  now  further  receive,  in  the 
fullest  unison  of  inspired  piety,  their  concen- 
trated outburst  for  the  ultimate  true  consecra- 
tion of  the  whole.  .  .  .  Hence,  it  can  by  no 
means  appear  strange  that  such  a  doxology 
has  obtained  the  character  of  overflowing  full- 
ness from  the  whole  recollection  of  what  had 
been  written."  (Meyer. )>]  [To  him  that  is 
of  power  to  stablish  you.  The  ability  of 
God  to  establish  them  was  a  doctrine  much 
insisted  on  in  the  apostle's  manner  of  preach- 
ing the  gospel,  and  (to  define  the  same  thing 
in  other  words)  in  his  preaching  of  Christ. 
[Meyer  remarks  that  the  above  description  of 
God  "corresponds  to  the  entire  scope  of  the 
Epistle."  A  chief  design  of  Paul's  intended 
visit  to  the  Koman  Christians,  was  that  they 
might  be  "established.''  (i:ii.)  According 
to  (m  conformity  with)  my  gospel,  which  is 
nothing  else  than  Christ's  own  preaching 
through  me(DeWette,  Meyer),  or,  that  preach- 
ing of  which  Christ  is  the  subject.  (Philippi, 
Godet.)  According  to  the  revelation. 
'  Revelation '  has  no  article,  because  the  follow- 
ing noun  has  none,  and  is  itself  preceded  by  a 


preposition.  The  word  is  put  by  Meyer  in  the 
same  construction  as  '  gospel '  and  '  preaching ' 
— that  is,  dependent  on  the  verb  'stablish.' 
We  prefer  with  Alford  and  Godet  to  connect 
it  with  the  preceding  substantives  as  being 
explanator3i'  of  them,  so  that  the  idea  of  the 
whole  would  be :  this  my  gospel  which  is  but 
the  preaching  of  which  Christ  is  the  sum  and 
substance,  is  in  accordance  with  a  revelation 
of  a  mystery  or  secret,  kept  in  silence.  Since 
the  world  began,  or,  as  in  the  Revised  Ver- 
sion, throiigh  times  eternal.  This  mystery 
must  embrace  the  whole  matter  of  human  re- 
demption, which,  of  course,  would  include 
the  bestowment  of  the  blessings  of  the  gospel 
on  the  Gentiles,  as  in  Eph.  3:  6.  If,  as  Godet 
remarks,  Paul's  preaching  of  Christ  was  'ac- 
cording to  the  revelation,'  then  we  have  in 
this  Epistle  not  simplj'  a  creation  of  his  power- 
ful understanding,  deserving  our  admiration, 
but  the  thought  of  God,  deserving  and  de- 
manding our  faith,  Compare  Gal.  1:  11,  12; 
Eph.  3:2-4;  1  Thess.  4:  8.  The  times  eternal, 
commonly  explained  by  the  phrases,  "from 
the  foundation  of  the  world,"  or  "from  the 
ages  and  from  the  generations"  (compare  Col. 
1 :  26;  Eph.  3:  9),  have  here  substantially  the 
same  meaning  as  from  eternity.^  But  now,  in 
contrast  with  '  times  eternal,'  is  made  mani- 
fest, or  has  been  ynanifested.  And  by  (by 
means  of)  the  Scriptures  of  the  prophets, 
or  the  prophetic  Scriptures.  According  to 
(in  consequence  of,  or  in  accordance  with) 
the  commandmentof  the  everlasting  God 
(who  alone,  as  Meyer  says,  "could  disj)Ose  of 
times  eternal  and  of  the  present"),  has  been 


>  The  important  MSS.  K  B  C  D  *  E,  and  most  of  the 
early  versions,  locate  the  doxology  here,  at  the  end  of 
the  Epistle;  L,  and  nearly  all  the  cursives,  at  the  end 
of  chapter  14 ;  while  A  P,  and  some  cursives,  have  it  in 
both  places.  Commentators,  almost  without  exception, 
defend  the  genuineness  of  its  present  position.  See 
note,  end  of  chapter  14.— (F.) 

*  We  do  not  suppose  that  the  phrase  '  eternal  times '  in 
itself  strictly  denotes  eternity,  since  the  expression,  be- 
fore eternal  times,  occurs  more  than  once  in  Paul's  writ- 
ings.   (2  Tim.  1:9;  Titus  1:2),  and  because  the  word 


'times'  of  itself  excludes  the  idea  of  absolute  eternity. 
Yet  Ellicott  remarks  that  the  phra.se,  before  times  eter- 
nal, seems  obviously  to  mean  "  from  all  eternity " — 
"times,  in  a  word,  which  reach  from  eternity."  "  Eter- 
nal times,"  says  Wordsworth,  "are  times  which  extend 
back  till  there  was  no  time."  Gifford  :  "  Times  reaching 
back  to  eternity."  Prof.  Grimm :  "  Without  beginning." 
From  this  point  of  view  the  expre.ssions, /rom  times  eter- 
nal and  from  eternity,  would  be  virtually  equivalent.— 
(FO 


512 


ROMANS. 


[Ch.  XVI. 


27  To  God  only  wise,  be  glory  through  Jesus  Christ  \  27  unto    oViedience  'of  faith;  to  the  only  wise  God, 
forever.    Amen.  I       through  Jesus  Christ,  ^to  whom  be  the  glory  3  for 

I      ever.    Amen. 

I  Or,  to  the  faith 2  Some  ancient  authorities  oniii  to  whom 3  Qr.  unto  the  ages. 

revealed,  the  apostle  transfers  the  doxology  to 
him,  and  thus  in  blessing  the  Mediator  and 
Revealer  of  the  divine  wisdom,  blesses  indi- 
rectly this  God  of  wisdom,  himself  manifested 
in  Christ."  This  really  seems  to  cover  the 
whole  intent  of  the  apostle  as  manifested  in 
tills  passage.  Since,  however,  the  passage  is 
diversely  interpreted  even  by  so-called  ortho- 
dox expositors,  it  seems  to  me  that  we  do  well 
not  to  rely  upon  this  as  an  indisputable  proof 
text.  For  similar  doxologies  to  Christ,-  see 
references  at  9:  15.]  The  'mystery'  of  God's 
great  plan  for  saving  men  of  all  nations, 
though  implicitly  intimated  by  the  prophets, 
was  so  little  understood  by  the  Jews  generally 
[a  "vail"  lying  upon  their  hearts,  so  that  they 
could  not  look  steadfastly  on  the  end  of  that 
which  was  being  done  away],  and  so  entirely 
unknown  to  the  Gentiles  that  it  may  well  be 
said  to  have  been  kept  secret  since  the  world 
began,  until  by  the  commandment  of  the  ever- 
lasting God  it  was  made  manifest  by  the 
preaching  of  the  gospel,  so  explaining  and 
supplementing  the  Scriptures  of  the  prophets 
as  to  make  it  known  to  all  nations  fur  the  obe- 
dience of  faith.  Thus  the  apostle  interweaves 
into  this  more  extended  concluding  doxoiogy 
a  compendium  of  the  suVjject  of  the  whole 
Epistle  and  of  his  design  in  writing  it,  and  so 
brings  his  work  to  a  fit  close  by  ascribing  to 
God  only  wise,  glory  through  Jesus 
Christ  for  ever.  Ameii.  ["And,"  says 
Bengel,  "let  everj'  believing  reader  say, 
Amen,"  to  which  we  would  add  :  Let  God  be 
praised  for  giving  to  the  world  "The  Epistle 
OF  Paul  to  the  Romans."  i] 


made  known  to  all  nations  (or  Gentile  peo- 
ples) for  (in  order  to  j)roduce) the  obedience 
of  faith,  or  obtdience  to  the  faith.  To  God 
only  (or,  absolutely)  wise;  so  called  because 
the  Infinite  Disposer  of  all  things  requires 
wisdom  as  well  as  power.  Be  glory  through 
Jesus  Christ  for  ever.  The  Revised  Ver- 
sion translates:  "To  the  only  wise  God, 
through  Jesus  Christ,  to  whom  be  glory  for 
ever.  Amen,"  and  adds  in  the  margin, 
"Some  ancient  authorities  omit  to  whom." 
The  'whom'  properly  refers  to  Christ,  and  to 
him  glory  should  be  given  'for  ever,'  or  unto 
the  ages.  By  putting  a  semicolon  after  Christ, 
the  "  Five  Clergymen  "  in  their  Revision  make 
the  '  whom  '  to  refer  to  God,  but  for  this  refer- 
ence we  properly  need  not  to  whom,  but,  as  in 
Eph..3:20  21,  to  him.  If  the  relative  is  retained 
and  treated  as  a  relative,  there  would  seem  to 
be  need  of  a  verb  to  be  supplied  to  the  clauses : 
'to  him  who  is  able,'  'to  God  only  wise.'  In 
Acts  20:  32,  Olshausen  and  Godet  find  a  fitting 
word  in  connection  with  precisely  similar 
phraseology,  to  wit:  "I  commend  you  to 
God  .  .  .  who  is  able  to  build  j^ou  up,"  etc. 
The  only  serious  objection  to  this  supply  is 
that  it  robs  this  passage  of  its  evidently  doxo- 
logical  form  and  character,  while  the  chief 
subject  of  this  section  confessedly  is  God 
rather  than  Christ.  Philippi  also  refers  the 
doxoiogy  to  Christ,  but  in  another  manner. 
"The  apostle,"  he  saj-s,  "meant  to  utter  a 
doxoiogy  to  the  power  and  wisdom  of  God  the 
Father;  but  inasmuch  as  this  wisdom  was 
manifested  in  Jesus  Christ,  and  he  was  thus 
the  medium  by  which  the  divine  wisdom  was 


1  Godet,  in  the  conclusion  of  his  "  Commentary,"  no- 
tices in  so  happy  a  manner  two  characteristic  points  of 
this  Epistle,  that  we  cannot  withhold  his  remarks  from 
our  readers.  He  says:  "  The  fiist  point  is  the  penetrat- 
ing logic,  the  sure  sweep  of  vision,  which  the  apostle 
shows  in  the  discussion  of  the  diflerent  subjects  which 
he  takes  up.  Not  an  exaggeration,  not  a  digression. 
The  hot  conflict  which  he  had  been  maintaining  in  the 
previous  years  with  the  partisans  of  the  legal  system 
might  have  predisposed  him  to  go  beyond  the  limit  of 
truth  on  some  points  in  estimating  Judaism.  The  in- 
cline was  slippery;  of  this  we  may  easily  convince  our- 
selves by  seeing  into  what  errors  it  carried  the  authors 
of  the  so-called  Epistle  of  Barnabas  and  of  the  letter  to 


Diognetus,  and  finally  Marcion.  And  yet  these  men 
had  guides  before  them — Paul's  writings  and  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews — which  might  have  helped  them  to  weigh 
their  judgments.  Paul  had  none  but  himself;  he  was 
under  the  influence  of  the  strong  reaction  against  the 
law  into  which  his  sudden  change  had  thrown  him,  and 
of  the  violent  resentment  which  must  have  been  i>ro- 
duced  in  him  by  the  injustice  and  hatred  of  his  Judaiz- 
ing  adversaries.  And  yet  he  moves,  without  wavering 
for  an  instant,  on  the  straight  line  of  truth,  exhibiting 
the  divinity  of  the  Ancient  Dispensation,  and  at  the 
same  time  its  profound  contrast  to  the  New,  so  that  the 
result  of  his  exposition  is  a  complete  view  both  of  the 
differeuce  and  of  the  harmony  between  the  two  econo- 


Ch.  XVL] 


ROMANS. 


313 


mies  of  salvation.  And  the  same  is  Ibe  case,  as  we  have 
seen,  in  all  the  questions  which  lie  touches.  In  matters 
where  we  still  detect  our  modern  writers,  even  the  most 
sagacious  and  Christian,  flagrantly  guilty  of  exaggera- 
tion to  the  right  or  to  the  left,  we  discover  in  lheai)0stle's 
view  a  fullness  of  truth  which  constantly  excludes  error. 
The  second  feature  which  strikes  us  in  his  writing  is  the 
perfect  calmness  with  which  he  seems  to  handle  truth. 
He  does  not  seek  it :  he  has  it.  Compare  the  Kjiistle  to 
the  Romans  with  Pascal's 'Thoughts,' and  the  distance 
will  be  seen  between  the  apostle  and  the  thinker  of  gen- 
ius. It  is  also  evident  that  the  ai)ostle  himself  draws 
his  life  from  the  faith  which  he  preaches.  He  has  faith 
in  his  faith,  as  one  cannot  have  in  his  thought,  for  the 
very  simple  rea.son  that  this  faith  is  not  his  discovery, 
but  the  gift  of  God.  .  .  . 

"And  let  us  not  forget  that  the  experience  of  ages  has 
siiokeu.  It  has  put  its  seal  to  the  conviction,  which  the 
apostle  bore  withiu  biiu.that  in  his  gospel  he  was  giving 


to  the  world,  not  his  own  thought,  but  that  of  God. 
For  history  shows  that  a  tiuly  powerful  and  healthy 
Christianity  has  never  developed  except  on  the  way  of 
salvation  traced  by  .St.  Paul. 

"The  New  Testament  contains  two  writings  which 
admirably  complete  one  another — the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans  and  the  Fourth  (iospel.  The  one  (the  Gospel] 
presents  for  our  contemplation  the  object  of  faith  in  its 
grander  and  perfect  beauty;  the  union  of  man  with 
(Jod  realized  in  One,  in  order  to  be  at  length  realized 
through  him  in  all.  The  other  initiates  us  into  the 
means  of  apprehending  the  salvation  thus  realized  ia 
one  for  all,  and  of  appropriating  it — the  act  of  faith. 
There,  the  ideal  realized,  shining  as  on  a  celestial  sum- 
mit;  here,  the  arduous  pathway  by  which  sinful  man 
may  succeed  in  reaching  it.  Let  the  church  constantly 
possess  herself  of  the  Christ  of  John  by  means  of  the 
faith  of  Paul,  and  she  will  be  i)reserved,  not  from  |)erse» 
cation,  but  froiu  a  more  terrible  eueiuy,  death." — (F.) 


APPENDIXES. 


APPENDIX  A,  TO  CHAPTER  4:  11,  PAGE  109. 

"  This  passage  is  sometimes  used  as  an  argument  for  Infant  Baptism ;  and  the  words 
"sign"  and  "seal"  are  applied  to  the  ordinances  of  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper,  as  if  they 
were  the  proper  key  words  with  which  to  open  the  doctrine  of  the  "  Christian  Sacraments,"  as 
they  are  often  called.  They  are  so  used  in  that  excellent  little  volume,  "  Tlie  Way  of  Life," 
written  by  Dr.  Charles  Hodge,  and  published  by  the  American  Sunday  School  Union.  That 
the  words  "sign"  and  "seal,"  in  this  passage,  were  not  designed,  and  are  not  happily  adapted 
for  such  a  use,  may  be  very  easily  sliown.  In  the  first  place,  there  is  nothing  in  the  connection 
to  indicate  that  Paul  had  in  his  mind  any  thought  of  Baptism  or  the  Lord's  Supper  when  he 
wrote  this  passage.  In  the  second  place,  what  is  here  said  of  circumcision  is  true  of  that  rite 
only  in  the  case  of  Abraham,  and  not  at  all  of  his  posterity.  It  was  indeed  to  him,  what  it  was 
not  at  all  to  them  personally,  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  the  faith  which  he  had  yet  being 
uncircumcised.  Since,  then,  these  words  would  be  unsuitable  and  untrue  as  an  account  of 
circumcision  when  applied  to  the  posterity  of  Abraham,  how  much  more  are  they  unsuitable 
and  untrue  as  an  account  of  baptism  when  applied  to  the  children  of  Christian  believers. 

But  still  farther,  while  we  do  not  allow  that  the  argument  from  circumcision  to  baptism 
has  any  legitimate  warrant  from  Scripture,  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  show  how  easily,  on  the 
admission  of  a  Scriptural  analogy  between  the  Jewish  and  the  Christian  rites,  the  argument 
might  be  turned  in  a  different  direction.  Dr.  Hodge  has  this  remark  in  his  commentary  on 
Rom.  4:  11:  "All  the  Jews  were  professors  of  the  true  religion,  and  constituted  the  visible 
church,  in  which,  by  divine  appointment,  their  children  were  included.  This  is  the  broad  and 
enduring  basis  of  infant  church-membership."  Let  us  examine  this  "  broad  and  enduring 
basis,"  in  the  light  of  the  following  brief  catechism. 

CIRCUMCISION  AND   BAPTISM. 

Q.  Did  the  covenant  which  God  made  with  Abraham  and  with  his  seed  include  both 
temporal  and  spiritual  blessings  ? 

A.  It  did. 

Q.  What  were  the  temporal  blessings  promised  in  that  covenant  ? 

A.  That  his  seed  should  be  multiplied  exceedingly,  that  they  should  possess  the  land  of 
Canaan,  and  that  they  should  be  peculiarly  the  objects  of  God's  providential  care  and  blessing. 
(Gen.  18:  1-8.) 

Q.  What  are  the  spiritual  blessings  promised  in  that  covenant  ? 

A.  Justification  by  faith,  and  the  promise  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  which  are  summarily 
included  all  the  blessings  of  salvation.     (Rom.  4:11;  Gal.  3:  14.) 

Q.  To  whom  do  the  temporal  blessings  of  the  covenant  belong? 

A.  To  the  natural  seed  of  Abraham. 

Q.  To  whom  do  the  spiritual  blessings  of  the  covenant  belong? 

A.  To  the  spiritual  seed  of  Abraham. 

315 


316  APPENDIXES. 


Q.  What  rite  did  God  appoint,  as  a  token  of  participation  in  the  temporal  blessings  of  the 
covenant  ? 

A.  Circumcision. 

Q.  What  rite  has  God  appointed,  as  a  token  of  participation  in  the  spiritual  blessings  of 
the  covenant  ? 

A.  Baptism. 

Q.  Who  then  ought  to  receive  the  rite  of  circumcision? 

A.  The  natural  seed  of  Abraham. 

Q.  Who  then  ought  to  receive  the  rite  of  baptism  ? 

A.  The  spiritual  seed  of  Abraham. 

Q.  Who  are  the  spiritual  seed  of  Abraham  ? 

A.  Believers  in  Jesus  Christ.     (Rom.  4:11,  12,  16 ;  Gal.  3  :  7,  29.) 

APPENDIX  B,  TO  CHAPTER  5:  12-21,  PAGE  128. 

GENERAL   AND  CONNECTED  VIEW   OF   ROMANS   5:    12-21. 

The  consideration  of  the  blessings  which  we  enjoy  in  consequence  of  being  justified  by 
faith  naturally  suggests  the  opponlte  evils  under  which  we  were  before  suffering  ("  reconciled," 
"reconciliation,"  ver.  10,  11);  and  especially  the  consideration  that  all  these  blessings  come  to 
us  (as  so  repeatedly  noted  in  the  preceding  verses,  1,  2,  6,  8,  9,  10,  11)  through  one  man,  forcibly 
suggests  the  thought  of  that  other  one  man,  through  whom  those  evils  came  upon  us.  It  is  the 
design  of  the  latter  part  of  this  chapter  to  illustrate  the  excellent  benefits  of  justification  by 
faith  in  Christ  in  the  light  of  this  comparison  between  our  first  parent,  whose  sin  brought  upon 
us  misery  and  condemnation,  and  Christ,  who  confers  upon  us  righteousness  and  life.  In  other 
words,  the  apostle  here  traces  both  sin  and  salvation  to  their  personal  sources  and  compares  them 
in  these  sources. 

12.  The  completely  expressed  sense  here  would  be,  *'as  by  one  man  sin  entered  into  the 
world,  and  death  by  sin,  so  also  by  one  man  came  righteousness,  and  life  by  righteousness."  And 
the  sense  is  so  completed  in  substance  in  ver.  18,  but  in  a  form  of  statement  modified  by  what 
more  immediately  precedes.  Under  the  word  death,  I  understand  the  apostle  to  include  here,  not 
only  the  death  of  the  body,  but  all  the  evils  of  that  condition  to  which  our  bodies  and  souls  are 
subjected  or  exposed,  here  and  hereafter,  by  reason  of  sin — all  the  consequences,  in  this  life  and  in 
the  life  to  come,  of  the  loss  of  the  divine  favor,  and  the  withholding  of  the  Divine  Spirit ;  the  op- 
posite, in  a  word,  of  all  that  is  included  in  the  word  life  in  ver.  17,  18,  21.  Augustine  says  "  the 
soul  dies  when  God  forsakes  it,  just  as  the  body  dies  when  the  soul  forsakes  it ;  and  it  is  death 
in  both  respects,  or  the  death  of  the  whole  man,  when  a  soul  forsaken  of  God  forsakes  the 
body."  The  death  of  the  body  is  the  palpable,  practical,  representative,  test  fact,  around  which 
our  reasonings  naturally  gather.  Of  the  group  of  connected  evils  comprehended  in  the  penalty 
of  sin,  natural  death  is  the  most  obvious,  the  most  readily  and  universally  noticed.  Hence  it  is 
eminently  suitable  to  represent  and  give  name  to  the  whole.  And  in  some  parts  of  the  apostle's 
argument,  this  concrete  fact  is  no  doubt  the  prominent  element.  In  a  similar  way  the  word 
life — which  in  its  literal  and  lowest  sense  of  animated  existence  is  the  substratum  on  which  all 
other  good  that  can  be  enjoyed  by  men  must  rest — represents  and  gives  name  to  the  whole. 

This  death  is  said  to  have  passed  through  to  all  men  because  all  sinned.  Death  and  sin 
are  co-extensive :  death  is  universal  because  sin  is  universal.  Wherever  the  effect  is  seen  there 
the  cause  is  proved  to  exist.  The  least  that  i<}>'  v  ("for  that")  can  fairly  mean  is,  "on  the 
assumed  condition  that  all  sinned."  This  is  equivalent  to  saying,  "on  the  ground  that  all 
sinned."  Calling  it  an  assumption,  or  a  presupposition,  will  not  affect  the  logical  connection  so 
distinctly  aflSrmed. 


APPENDIXES.  317 


13,  14.  These  verses  contain  the  proof  of  what  is  affirmed  in  ver,  12.  Before  the  law  of 
Moses  was  given,  the  same  effects  of  sin  were  no  less  manifest  than  afterward.  But  sin  is  not 
imputed  when  there  is  no  law.  If  men  had  been  under  no  law  during  all  this  time,  they  would 
not  have  been  treated'  as  transgressors.  But  the  well-known  fact  is,  that  men  were  just  as  much 
subject  to  death  before  Moses  as  afterward.  And  even  those  who  had  not  actually  sinned  (or, 
sinned  in  tlie  same  manner)  as  Adam  did  were  no  less  subject  to  it  than  others ;  that  is  to  say, 
infants  died,  as  well  as  adult  sinners.  Hence  it  is  plain  that  these  suffered  the  consequences  of 
sin,  neither  on  account  of  the  violation  of  the  law  of  Moses,  nor  on  account  of  the  violation  of 
the  law  of  nature.  On  account  of  what,  then,  did  tliey  suffer  these  consequences  of  sin  ? 
Answer:  on  account  of  the  disobedience  of  that  one  man,  by  whom,  according  to  ver.  12,  sin 
came  into  the  world,  and  passed  through  to  all  men.  "  8ince  sin  came  into  the  world  as  an 
abnormal  ethical  principle,  death  came  into  the  world  with  it  as  an  abnormal  physiological 
principle.  Therefore  the  propagation  of  the  abnormal  principle  of  death  presupposes  the 
propagation  of  the  abnormal  principle  of  sin,  in  the  actual  sinning  of  all."  (Lange  on  "Romans,"' 
p.  180.)  While  God  will  judge  men  impartially,  and  "render  to  every  man  according  to  his 
works,"  >et  in  respect  to  certain  general  principles  and  conditions  of  our  being,  he  deals  with 
his  creature  man  as  a  race,  he  regards  humanity  as  a  unit.  Meyer  justly  remarks,  that  the 
view  that  the  death  of  individuals  is  the  result  of  their  personal  sins,  would  vitiate  and  even 
contradict  the  whole  parallel  between  Adam  and  Christ.     (Vol.  I.,  p.  248.) 

A  different  explanation  may  be  given  of  the  expression  "even  over  those  who  liad  not 
sinned  after  the  similitude  of  Adam's  transgression  " — namely,  that  it  refers  merely  to  those 
who  had  not  violated  an  express  precept,  as  Adam  did.  This  explanation  seems  to  me  liable  to 
the  following  objections : 

1.  The  distinction  seems  too  unimportant.  The  heathen,  according  to  the  apostle,  sin 
against  sufficient  liglit  to  make  them  inexcusable.     (Ch.  1 :  20.) 

2.  The  form  of  expression  seems  to  discriminate  between  a  certain  class  of  those  between 
Adam  and  Moses,  and  the  rest:  it  seems  to  imply  that  death  reigned  over  a  particular  class, 
over  whom  it  had  apparently  less  right  to  reign  than  over  those  generally  who  lived  before  Moses. 

3.  The  explanation  objected  to  makes  Paul  say  less  than  the  truth  of  the  case  required. 

4.  It  makes  him  say  less  in  his  proof,  in  ver.  14,  than  he  had  said  in  his  proposition,  in  ver. 
12,  and  so  makes  his  argument  inconclusive ;  for  infants  are  certainly  included  in  the  clause, 
"and  so  death  passed  through  to  all  men." 

5.  It  represents  him  as  passing  over  in  silence  the  most  difficult  feature  in  the  case,  and  so 
renders  his  argument  defective  at  the  most  important  point.  The  case  of  those  who  die  in 
infancy  seems  naturally  to  come  up  here,  and  to  require  notice.  It  seems  scarcely  credible  that 
they  should  be  entirely  ignored  in  an  argument  of  this  nature.  (See  the  distinction  between 
children  and  adults  distinctly  recognized  in  9:  11 ;  also  Jonah  4:  11 ;  Deut.  1 :  39;  Isa.  7  :  16.) 

6.  It  seems  to  be  introducing  a  superfluous  distinction,  of  which  no  use  is  made  in  the 
apostle's  argument. 

7.  It  seems  to  be  raising  an  objection,  without  answering  it.  For  those  who  are  represented, 
according  to  this  interpretation,  as  less  guilty,  are  represented  as  suffering  the  same  consequence 
of  sin  as  tiie  more  guilty,  who  have  violated  an  express  precept.  Death  reigns  alike  over  all. 
This  objection  is  valid,  of  course,  only  in  so  far  as  death  is  here  understood  in  its  more  limited 
sense. 

8.  It  requires  a  somewhat  forced  limitation  of  the  expression,  "sin  is  not  imputed  when 
there  is  no  law"  (ver.  13),  and  then  seems  to  contradict  this  limitation  in  the  next  verse,  by 
the  statement  that  those  to  whom  sin  was  not  imputed  (comparatively),  because  they  have  not 
the  law  (of  Moses)  suffered  just  the  same  consequences  of  sin  as  those  did  to  whom  sin  was 
imputed  (fully),  because  they  had  the  law  of  Moses. 


318  APPENDIXES. 


On  the  supposition  that  this  clause  refers  to  infants,  it  does  not  necessarily  decide  their 
fixture  condition.  The  fact  that  they  suffer  the  death  of  the  body  on  account  of  sin  no  more 
necessitates  the  inference  of  their  future  condemnation,  than  the  fact  that  believers  in  Christ 
suffer  the  same  evil  necessitates  their  final  condemnation.  The  whole  race  suffers  this  conse- 
quence of  sin.  Infants  suffer  less  in  death  than  believers  in  Christ.  Since  they  are  not,  in 
tliis  respect,  treated  worse  than  believers  in  this  world,  we  have  no  ground,  so  far  as  this 
argument  is  concerned,  to  conclude  that  they  will  be  condemned  in  the  world  to  come.  Of 
course,  death  must  be  taken  in  its  more  limited  sense  in  this  part  of  the  apostle's  argument ;  for 
here  he  is  reasoning  from  known  and  obvious  facts — from  such  of  the  evils  consequent  upon  sin 
as  are  observed  and  experienced  in  this  world.  Yet  the  other  connected  evils  would  naturally 
follow,  unless  arrested  by  some  special  divine  arrangement.  Whether  there  would  have  been 
any  remedy  provided  against  the  future  consequences  of  sin  in  the  case  of  infants,  if  there  had 
not  been  any  provided  for  adults,  is  a  question  which  we  may  prudently  leave  undecided. 

In  the  close  of  ver.  14,  the  apostle  tells  us  that  Adam  was  a  type  of  Christ.  He  was  the 
head  and  representative  of  the  race  of  human  sinners,  as  Christ  is  the  Head  and  Representative 
of  the  race  of  saints.  These  are  the  two  groups  into  which  the  apostle  divides  mankind.  It  is 
important  to  keep  this  in  mind  in  the  interpretation  of  the  following  verses.  The  three  follow- 
ing verses  qualify  this  typical  resemblance,  or  explain  its  negative  side,  by  showing  the  points 
of  difference. 

It  is  not  easy  to  discern  the  precise  points  of  difference  which  the  apostle  intends  to 
emphasize  in  these  three  verses.  They  all  illustrate  this  general  statement,  that  the  stream  of 
blessings  which  flows  to  the  race  from  Christ  as  a  source  (more  strictly  to  those  of  our  race  who 
receive  the  abundance  of  grace,  etc.),  surpasses  the  stream  of  ills  which  flows  to  us  from  Adam. 
We  gain  in  Christ  more  than  we  lost  in  Adam.  But  what  specific  aspect  of  this  general  truth 
is  expressed  in  each  of  these  verses?  A  careful  examination  of  the  words  and  forms  of  expres- 
sion in  each  verse  may  help  us  to  decide  this  question. 

In  ver.  15,  the  emphasis  seems  to  be  placed  on  the  positive  blessings,  over  and  above  the 
mere  deliverance  from  penalty,  which  we  gain  in  Christ.  The  contrast  seems  to  be  chiefly 
expressed  by  the  words  "grace,"  "gift,"  and  "abounded,"  in  opposition  to  "died."  The  latter 
is  much  more  than  neutralized  by  the  former.  In  ver,  16,  the  point  of  emphasis  seems  to  be 
the  one  trespass  of  Adam  and  the  many  personal  trespasses  which  are  cancelled  in  Christ. 
W^hile  we  suffer  from  our  connection  with  Adam  the  penalty  of  one  transgression,  we  obtain 
from  our  connection  with  Christ  the  forgiveness  of  many  transgressions. 

It  is  important  to  note  here,  that  ihe  apostle  is  careful  to  make  a  distinction  between  the 
consequences  of  our  own  actual  voluntary  sins,  and  the  evil  which  comes  upon  us  solely  or 
inevitably  on  account  of  Adam's  sin.     He  seems  in  this  to  intimate : 

1.  That  the  consequences  of  our  own  many  voluntary  transgressions  are  much  more  serious 
than  any  consequences  in  which  Adam's  one  transgression  alone  would  have  involved  us. 

2.  That  nevertheless  Adam's  one  transgression  does  bring  evils  upon  us,  irrespective  of  any 
personal  transgressions  of  our  own. 

3.  The  noting  of  this  distinction  between  the  direct  and  the  indirect  effects  of  Adam's  sin,  or, 
in  other  words,  between  the  effects  which  are  independent  of  our  own  will  and  action,  and  those 
in  which  our  own  will  and  action  are  concurrent  and  intensifying  causes,  goes  to  confirm  our  inter- 
pretation of  the  second  clause  of  ver.  14,  and  to  justify  the  application  of  that  clause  to  those 
who  suffer  only  such  effects  of  Adam's  sin  as  ensue  without  any  co-operation  on  the  part  of  his 
descendants.  And  this  allusion  to  the  distinction  between  the  evils  brought  upon  us  by  Adam's 
sin  and  the  just  penalty  of  our  own  many  voluntary  transgressions  naturally  introduces  and 
helps  to  explain  the  precise  emphasis  of  ver.  17.  For  here  the  emphasis  seems  to  lie  in  the 
words  "  who  receive  abundance  of  grace,"  etc. ;  and  the  specific  contrast  seems  to  be  between  the 


APPENDIXES.  319 


voluntariness  of  those  who  enjoy  the  benefits  of  Christ's  righteousness,  and  the  involuiitariness  of 
our  participation  in  the  consequences  of  Adam's  sin  (invohnitariness,  so  far  as  the  direct  and 
unavoidable  consequences  are  concerned).     In  support  of  this  view  it  may  be  said : 

1.  That  the  use  of  the  present  participle,  instead  of  the  aorist,  favors  this  interpretation. 
For  while  the  aorist,  oi  AojSdfTes,  would  simply  mean  "  they  who  received  the  abundance  of 
grace,"  the  present,  oi  kaix^dvovre^^  is  more  nearly  equivalent  to  "  the  receivers  of  the  abundance 
of  grace,"  it  has  more  of  a  substantive  character,  and  is  more  naturally  suggestive  of  a  class  of 
persons  who  are  distinguished  by  this  peculiarity,  that  they  are  the  receivers,  the  accepters,  of  an 
ofTered  benefit. 

2.  The  collocation  of  the  words  seems  intended  to  make  the  participle  emphatic :  it  is  not 

oi   Ao/ii^afOfTes  Ti)v  iT(pi(T<Teiav,  etC.  J    but  oi   Ti)f  irepicTdtiav  T^s   x<*P^''''S  ""^^    "^^  Suptat  TJjs  fiiKaiocrutojs  Aaji/Savov- 

Tes,  the  participle  (receiving)  being  reserved  to  an  emphatic  position  near  the  following  verb. 

3.  The  change  in  the  subject  of  the  verb,  from  things  to  persons,  from  i<D>?  (life),  the 
appropriate  contrast  to  Oavarot  (death)  above,  to  oi  \aiJ.pavovT((:  (those  receiving).  This  change  is 
the  more  noticeable  from  the  fact  that  the  same  verb  is  used  in  the  contrasted  clauses,  thus :  as 
the  antithesis  of  death  reigned  we  have,  not  life  reigned,  but  those  receiving,  etc.,  shall  reign  in 
life.  Notice  also  the  position  of  in  life  (immediately  before '  the  verb  in  the  Greek),  as  if  it 
occurred  to  the  writer  that  life  belonged  to  the  verb  by  right  of  rhetorical  propriety,  but  over- 
ruled by  a  higher  consideration.  As  it  might  be  anticipated  from  the  benevolence  of  God 
that  he  would  make  the  good  overbalance  the  evil,  so  this  just  anticipation  is  neatly  confirmed 
by  the  additional  circumstance  that  our  connection  with  the  source  of  evil  was  involuntary, 
while  our  connection  with  the  source  of  good  is  voluntary.  If  this  is  the  true  explanation  of 
this  verse,  it  shows  very  explicitly  between  what  parties  the  comparison  is  made  throughout  this 
section — namely,  those  on  the  one  hand  who  are  connected  with  Adam  by  natural  birth,  that 
is,  all  mankind,  and  those  on  the  other  hand  who  are  connected  with  Christ  by  spiritual  birth, 
that  is,  all  believers. 

In  ver.  18,  the  apostle  returns  to  what  he  had  begun  to  state,  but  left  unfinished,  at  ver.  12. 
What  he  there  began  to  state  was,  that  as  sin  and  death  came  into  the  world  through  one  man, 
Adam,  and  passed  through  from  him  to  all  his  natural  descendants,  so  righteousness  and  life 
came  by  one  man,  Christ,  and  passed  through  to  all  his  spiritual  posterity.  He  now  completes 
the  statement  by  adding  the  omitted  part  in  verses  18,  19,  carrying  out  the  full  parallel  between 
Adam  and  Christ,  in  ver.  18,  so  far  as  relates  to  death  on  the  one  hand  and  life  on  the  other; 
and  in  ver.  19,  so  far  as  relates  to  sin  on  the  one  hand  and  righteousness  on  the  other.  There 
seem  to  have  been  two  interruptions  in  the  apostle's  argument,  the  first  including  verses  13  and 
14,  where  he  turns  somewhat  aside  from  his  main  course  of  thought  to  prove  the  statement 
contained  in  the  last  part  of  ver.  12,  "for  that  all  sinned" ;  and  the  second  including  verses  15 
to  17,  in  which  he  pauses  to  qualify  and  limit  the  last  clause  of  ver.  14,  "  who  is  the  figure  of 
him  that  was  to  come." 

The  principal  difficulty  in  this  view  lies  in  the  second  "  all."     We  must  either 

1.  Take  the  whole  in  an  unlimited  sense,  and  admit  alike  universal  justification  and  uni- 
versal salvation ;  or, 

2.  Qualify  the  expression  "justification  of  life,"  and  regard  it  as  having  some  lower  sense, 
not  implying  the  actual  salvation  of  the  justified ;  or, 

3.  Limit  the  sense  of  the  word  "all,"  and  regard  it  as  not  absolutely  including  all  mankind. 
I  adopt  the  last  view,  for  the  following  reasons : 

1,  It  is  more  agreeable  to  Scriptural  and  general  usage  to  limit  this  word,  than  to  limit  the 
descriptive  phrase  "justification  of  life." 

2.  Adam  and  Christ,  throughout  this  passage,  are  represented  each  as  the  head  of  a  certain 
class :  but  that  class  does  not  consist  in  each  case  entirely  of  the  same  individuals.     Adam's 


320  ■     APPENDIXES. 

"all"  is  equivalent  to  all  the  children  of  men:  Christ's  "all"  is  equivalent  to  all  the  children 
of  God  :  Adam's  "  all "  includes  all  who  are  born  of  the  flesh ;  Christ's  "  all "  includes  all  who 
are  born  of  the  Spirit.  Each  imparts  what  belongs  to  himself  to  all  that  are  his ; — Adam,  his 
sin  and  death ;  Christ,  his  righteousness  and  life. 

3.  In  the  previous  verse,  the  blessings  which  flow  from  Christ  are  distinctly  limited  to 
those  who  voluntarily  receive  his  abundant  grace. 

The  "  all "  in  the  last  case,  then,  are  all  who  are  actually  connected  with  Christ  by  regen- 
eration and  faith  ;  and  in  fact,  numerically,  these  constitute  "  a  great  multitude  which  no  man 
can  number,  out  of  every  nation  and  kindred  and  people  and  tongue,  who"  will  "have  washed 
their  robes  and  made  them  white  in  the  blood  of  the  Lamb."     (Rev.  7 :  9,  14.) 

19.  As  ver.  18  completes  the  parallel  begun  in  verse  12  between  Adam  and  Christ  so  far 
as  the  opposites  death  and  life  are  concerned,  so  this  verse  completes  the  parallel  so  far  as  the 
opposites  sin  and  righteousness  are  concerned.  The  use  of  the  same  terms  "  the  many "  to 
designate  the  two  parties  is  to  be  explained  in  the  same  manner  as  the  use  of  "all  men"  in  both 
cases  in  ver.  18. 

But  here  the  question  arises  whether  sin  and  righteousness  are  to  be  understood  in  the 
leo-al  and  forensic  sense,  or  in  the  moral  and  practical  sense ;  or,  which  is  substantially  the 
same  thing,  whether  this  last  verse  has  reference  to  justification  or  to  sanctification.  The  com- 
mentators generally  refer  it  to  the  former,  adopting  various  methods  of  explaining  the  relation 
between  this  verse  and  the  preceding.  I  prefer  to  regard  it  as  referring  to  sanctification,  taking 
the  terms  "sin"  and  "  righteousness"  in  their  ethical  rather  than  in  their  judicial  sense.  The 
very  terms  themselves,  as  contrasted  with  those  in  ver.  18,  seem  to  point  very  distinctly  to  this 
interpretation.  In  the  former  verse  we  have  "offence"  and  "condemnation"  on  the  one  hand, 
and  "righteousness"  and  "justification"  on  the  other,  three  out  of  the  four  distinctively  forensic 
terms,  and  the  fourth  readily  admitting  the  forensic  sense.  In  the  latter  verse  the  terms  are,  on 
the  one  hand,  "disobedience"  and  "sinners,"  and  on  the  other  "obedience"  and  "righteous," 
all  naturally  having  the  ethical  sense,  though  the  last  is  often  used  also  in  the  forensic  sense. 
Besides,  the  verb  Kadiar-qy.!.,  "  I  constitute,"  which  is  used  in  both  memLers  of  the  comparison, 
denotes  the  actual  fact,  and  not  the  legal  relation.  The  word  naturally  points  to  what  men  are 
actually  constituted  or  made,  not  to  what  they  are  legally  regarded  as  being.  If  it  be  objected 
that  they  are  not  actually  made  righteous  at  once,  but  gradually  and  progressively,  while  they 
are  made  sinners  at  once  by  their  own  first  sin,  if  not  by  Adam's,  we  answer,  that  the  apostle 
has  carefully  provided  for  this  objection  by  putting  the  verb  in  the  past  tense  in  the  one  case 
and  in  the  future  tense  in  the  other.  They  "were  constituted  sinners,"  they  "shall  be  consti- 
tuted righteous."     Their  perfect  justification  secures  their  ultimate  perfect  sanctification. 

This  explanation  introduces  the  subject  of  sanctification  a  few  verses  earlier  than  the 
common  analysis.  It  is  generally  regarded  as  introduced  at  the  beginning  of  chapter  6.  But 
our  interpretation  makes  chapter  5:19  give  at  least  an  anticipatory  hint  of  the  coming  topic. 

20.  But  the  two  great  antithetical  facts  heretofore  spoken  of  do  not  express  the  whole 
truth  in  regard  to  the  matter  in  hand.  The  law  of  Moses  "  came  in  besides "  {■napti.<Tr)Ketv) — 
besides  the  fact  of  many  being  made  sinners,  and  as  a  transition  point  to  tlie  other  result  of 
many  being  made  righteous.  Tliis  third  term  in  God's  dealings  with  men  was  introduced  in 
order  that  transgression  might  multiply.  The  law  caused  transgression  to  multiply,  partly  by 
enlarging  the  rule  of  duty  (4:  15),  and  partly  by  provoking  the  propensity  to  sin  (7:  8).  But 
the  ultimate  end  which  God  had  in  view  in  thus  introducing  the  law  was,  not  that  sin  might 
multiply,  but  that  grace  might  superabound  through  this  very  increase  of  transgression. 

21.  In  other  words,  and  finaljy,  that  as  sin  reigned  in  death,  so  grace  might  reign,  by 
means  of  righteousness,  unto  life  eternal,  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord. 

One  serious  logical  difiiculty  which  some  have  felt  in  regard  to  this  whole  representation 


APPENDIXES.  321 

apart  from  tlie  objections  already  noticed  is,  that  according  to  the  apostle's  argument  it  would 
seem  tliat  believers  ought  to  be  delivered  from  natural  death.     To  this  it  may  be  answered : 

1.  Christ  himself  had  to  undergo  death.     If  the  believer  were  exempted  from  it,  he  woul 
be  less  conformed  to  his  pattern. 

2.  This  world  is  the  tiieatre  in  which  Clirisi's  redeeming  work  is  progressively  accomplished. 
Pardon  and  justification  are  instantaneous  and  complete;  but  sanctification  is  gradual  and  life- 
long.    iSo  death  will  ultimately  be  abolished  by  Christ.     (1  Cor.  15:  26.) 

3.  The  triumph  of  grace  in  the  believer's  experience  is  even  more  illustrious  by  giving 
him  peace  in  death,  and  victory  in  yielding  to  it,  tlian  it  would  be  in  exempting  him  from  it. 
Death  is  now  become  one  of  the  "  all  things  "  that  "  work  together  for  good  "  to  the  believer. 
Instead  of  being  all  his  lifetime  in  bondage  to  the  fear  of  death  (Heb,  2:  15),  he  accepts  death 
as  one  of  the  crosses  which  Christ's  grace  makes  welcome,  in  one  respect  the  most  welcome  of 
all,  because  the  last.  How  much  the  religion  of  Christ  would  lose,  if  it  were  despoiled  of  the 
glory  in  which  it  shines  around  the  bedside  of  the  dying  saint !  Higher  considerations,  then, 
than  any  seeming  demands  of  logical  consistency  stand  opposed  to  the  believer's  exemption 
from  the  sentence  of  natural  death.  If  Christ's  conquest  over  death  had  abolished  it  once  for 
all,  that  would  have  been  one  decisive  victory.  As  the  case  now  stands,  Christ's  victory  over 
death  is  reproduced  and  multipled  at  every  triumphant  departure  of  a  believing  soul,  and  death 
is  thus  sentenced  to  the  mortification  of  innumerable  defeats,  culminating  at  last  in  his  utter 
overthrow  and  annihilation, 

APPENDIX  C,  TO  ROMANS  6 :  1-14,  PAGE  155. 

The  reference  which  the  apostle  makes  to  baptism  in  the  first  few  verses  of  this  chapter  is 
in  some  parts  rendered  obscure  by  his  brief  and  elliptical  manner  of  expression.  But  the 
general  object  and  the  emphatic  points  of  the  comparison  are  sufficiently  plain. 

The  things  to  be  observed  here,  as  the  hinges  of  the  apostle's  argument,  and  the  key  to  the 
explanations  of  the  particular  expressions  are  the  following: 

1.  A  death  and  a  new  life,  in  a  spiritual  sense — a  dying  to  sin,  and  a  living  anew  to  God  ; 
compared  to 

2.  A  death  and  a  new  life  in  a  literal  sense — the  death  of  Christ,  and  his  post-resurrection 
life ;  and  illustrated  by 

3.  A  death  and  a  new  life  in  a  symbolical  sense — the  submersion  and  emersion  of  the 
Christian  in  baptism. 

Or,  to  express  the  same  thing  in  a  slightly  altered  form : 

1.  The  dying  to  sin,  and  the  rising  to  a  new  and  holy  life,  which  is  realized  in  the  Chris- 
tian's spiritual  experience,  is  compared  to 

2.  The  literal  dying  and  rising  again  of  Christ,  and  represented  by 

3.  The  symbolical  burial  and  resurrection  of  baptism. 

Christ  died  and  lived  again ;  he  was  buried  and  he  arose  from  the  tomb.  He  died  to  sin, 
inasmuch  as  his  death  terminated  that  connection  with  sin  which  he  had  voluntarily  assumed, 
and  which  caused  all  the  suflTerings  of  his  earthly  life,  and  finally  his  death  on  the  cross.  He 
lives  unto  God,  inasmuch  as  he  has  returned  to  dwell  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father,  in  the  glory 
which  he  had  with  the  Father  before  the  world  was. 

Believers  are  conformed  to  and  conjoined  with  {(r<i,j.<t>vToi.)  Christ  in  his  death  to  sin  and  new 
life  to  God,  inasmuch  as  they  too  have  renounced  sin,  and  separated  themselves  from  it,  so  that 
it  has  now  no  more  to  do  with  them,  nor  they  with  it  (rightfully)  than  a  dead  body  has  with 
the  affairs  of  living  men.  They  are  alive  unto  God,  inasmuch  as  they  have  devoted  their  lives 
to  him,  and  are  walking  with  him  in  a  new  life  of  filial  obedience,  intercourse,  and  confidence. 

y 


322  APPENDIXES. 


This  conformity  of  believers  to  Christ  is  set  fortli  in  their  baptism,  which  in  the  outward 
act  resembles  and  represents  his  burial  and  resurrection,  and,  in  its  spiritual  import,  typifies  and 
declares  their  dying  to  sin  and  living  anew  to  God. 

This  comparison  forcibly  illustrates  the  importance  of  Scriptural  baptism,  and  the  evil  that 
results  from  any  change,  either  in  the  subjects  or  in  the  act.  When  any  but  professed  believers 
in  Christ  are  the  subjects,  baptism  ceases  t  j  have  the  spiritual  significance  which  the  Scriptures 
ascribe  to  it.  When  the  act  is  anything  else  than  immersion,  it  ceases  to  have  the  symbolical 
fitness  which  belongs  to  its  proper  form.  And  when  it  loses  both  these,  how  much  of  its  validity 
or  sacredness  remains? 

As  to  the  form  in  which  baptism  was  administered  in  apostolical  times,  and  as  a  general 
rule  for  twelve  or  thirteen  centuries,  the  testimony  of  the  most  learned  commentators,  church 
historians,  and  antiquarians  is  very  uniform  and  emphatic.  The  few  that  we  give  below  as  a 
specimen  are  copied  from  a  recent  work,  entitled  "  The  Act  of  Baptism,"  by  Henry  S.  Burrage, 
published  by  the  American  Baptist  Publication  Society. 

"  This  passage  (Rom  6 :  4)  cannot  be  understood  unless  it  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  primi- 
tive baptism  was  by  immersion."  (Conybeare  and  Howson,  "  Life  and  Epistles  of  St.  Paul," 
vol.  II.,  p.  169.) 

"There  seems  to  be  no  reason  to  doubt  that  both  here  (Col.  2:  12)  and  in  Rom.  6:  4,  there 
is  an  allusion  to  the  katadusis  and  anadusis  [the  sinking  down  and  rising  up]  in  baptism." 
(Bishop  Ellicott,  "  Com.  on  Colossians,"  p.  166.) 

"  Baptism  is  the  grave  of  the  old  man  and  the  birth  of  the  new.  As  he  sinks  beneath  the 
baptismal  waters  the  believer  buries  there  all  his  corrupt  affections  and  past  sins ;  as  lie 
emerges  thence  he  rises  regenerate,  quickened  to  new  hopes  and  a  new  life.  .  .  .  Thus  baptism 
is  an  image  of  his  participation  both  in  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ.  .  .  .  For  this  two- 
fold image  as  it  presents  itself  to  St.  Paul,  see  especially  Rom.  6 :  3,  et.  seq."  (Canon  Lightfoot, 
"On  Colossians,"  ch.  2:  12.) 

"As  to  the  outward  mode  of  administration  of  the  ordinance,  immersion,  and  not  sprink- 
ling, was  unquestionably  the  original  normal  form.  This  is  shown  by  the  very  meaning  of  the 
Greek  words  baptizo,  baptisma,  baptismos,  used  to  designate  the  rite."  (Schaff,  "  History  of 
the  Apostolic  Church,"  vol.  II.,  p.  256.) 

"Baptism,  which  was  the  .sign  of  admission  into  the  church,  was  administered  by  immer- 
sion."    (Pressens^,  "Early  Years  of  Christianity,"  p.  374.) 

"  There  can  be  no  question  that  the  original  form  of  baptism,  the  very  meaning  of  the 
word,  was  complete  immersion  in  the  deep  baptismal  waters,  and  that  for  at  least  four  centuries 
any  other  form  was  either  unknown  or  regarded,  unless  in  the  case  of  dangerous  illness,  as  an 
exceptional,  almost  a  monstrous  case."     (Stanley,  "History  of  the  Eastern  Church,"  p.  117.) 

"  Baptism  was  originally  administered  by  immersion."  (Guericke,  "  Church  History,"  vol. 
I.,  p.  100.) 

"  The  ceremony  of  immersion  (the  oldest  form  of  baptism)  was  performed  in  the  name  of 
the  three  Persons  of  the  Trinity."     (Waddington,  "  Church  History,"  p.  27.) 

"  The  Baptists  are,  in  fact,  from  the  Protestant  standpoint,  unassailable  ;  since  for  their 
demand  of  baptism  by  submersion  they  have  the  clear  Bible  text,  and  the  authority  of  the 
church  and  of  her  testimony  is  regarded  by  neither  party."  (Dr.  Dollinger,  "Kirche  and 
Kirchen,"  p.  337.) 

"  The  testimony  (that  immersion  was  the  primitive  act  of  baptism)  is  ample  and  decisive. 
No  matter  of  church  history  is  clearer.  The  evidence  is  all  one  way,  and  all  church  historians 
of  any  repute  agree  in  accepting  it.  It  is  a  point  on  which  ancient,  mediaeval,  and  modern 
historians  alike,  Catholic  and  Protestant,  Lutheran  and  Calvinistic,  have  no  controversy.  And 
the  simple  reason  for  this  unanimity  is  that  the  statements  of  the  early  Fathers  are  so  clear, 


APPENDIXES.  323 


and  the  light  shed  upon  these  statements  from  the  early  customs  of  the  church  is  so  conclusive 
that  no  historian  who  cares  for  his  reputation  would  dare  to  deny  it,  and  no  historian  who  is 
worthy  of  the  name  would  wish  to.'  (L.  L.  Paine,  d.  d.  ( Congregational ist),  Professor  of 
Church  History  in  the  Theological  Seminary  at  Bangor,  Maine.—"  Christian  Mirror,"  Aug. 
3,  1875.) 

["All  commentators  of  note  (except  Stuart  and  Hodge)  expressly  admit  or  take  it  for 
granted  that  in  tliis  verse.  .  .  .  the  ancient  prevailing  mode  of  baptism  by  immersion  and 
emersion  is  implied  as  giving  additional  force  to  the  idea  of  the  going  down  of  the  old,  and  the 
rising  up  of  the  new  man."     (Dr.  Scliatf,  in  Lange's  "Commentary  on  Romans.") 

Among  these  "commentators  of  note"  who  have  thus  expressed  their  opinion,  we  may 
mention,  besides  those  already  quoted,  the  names  of  Ruckert,  Fritzsche,  Tholuck,  De  Wette, 
Meyer,  Ebrard,  Lange,  Ciialmers,  Webster  and  Wilkinson,  Alford,  Philippi,  and  Godet,  the  last 
three  somewhat  cautiously.] 

Similar  testimonies  and  admissions  might  easily  be  largely  multiplied ;  but  there  is  no  need ; 
these  few  among  the  more  recent  will  suffice. 

APPENDIX  D,  TO  ROMANS  7 :  7-25,  PAGE  172. 

Few  passages  are  more  contested  tiian  this.     The  two  principal  points  are : 

1.  Whetiier  the  experience  described  in  verses  14-25  is  that  of  a  regenerate  man,  or  of  an 
unregenerate  man.  It  is  generally  admitted  that  verses  7-13  describe  the  experience  of  an 
unregenerate  man. 

2.  Whether  the  apostle  is  here  describing  his  own  experience,  or  only  uses  the  first  person 
by  way  of  accommodation,  and  for  greater  vivacity  of  representation. 

A.  In  respect  to  the  first  question,  the  history  of  the  two  interpretations  is  briefly  as  follows: 
The  earlier  interpreters,  down  to  the  time  of  Augustine,  uniformly  [generally]  explained  the 
whole  section  as  descriptive  of  the  experience  of  a  man  not  yet  regenerated.  Augustine  himself 
at  first  followed  this  interpretation,  but  he  afterward  adopted  and  advocated  the  view  that  verses 
14-25  are  to  be  regarded  as  the  experience  of  a  renewed  man.  The  earlier  interpretation  was 
followed  by  all  the  Reformers  who  leaned  to  Arminian  views  of  doctrine,  and  by  a  few  who  did 
not.  (Erasmus,  Faustus  Socinus,  Raphelius,  Arminius,  Episcopius,  Limborch,  Clericus,  Turretin, 
Bucer.')  Among  more  recent  interpreters,  the  same  view  has  l)een  maintained  by  A.  H.  Francke. 
Bengel,  Gottfried  Arnold,  Zinzendorf,  Reinhard,  Storr  and  Flatt,  Knapp,  etc. ;  and  in  our  own 
times  by  Stier,  Tholuck,  Ruckert,  De  Wette,  Meyer,  Lange,  and  Stuart.  Some  of  these  held  the 
above  view  with  some  modification.  Tholuck,  for  example,  says  that  verses  14-25  describe  the 
experience  of  a  legalist,  zealously  concerned  about  his  sanctification  and  partially  influenced  by 
the  Spirit  of  God. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  later  view  of  Augustine  was  followed  by  Anselm,  Thomas  Aquinas, 
and  Cornelius  a  Lapide,  among  the  scholastic  divines;  by  Luther,  Melanctlion,  Calvin,  and  Beza, 
among  the  Reformers ;  by  Spener,  Buddaeus,  and  Ko[)pe,  in  later  times ;  and  it  has  been  adopted 
in  our  own  day  by  Philippi,  Alford,  Barnes,  Hodge,  Haldane,  Forbes,  Dr.  John  Brown,  and 
others. 

Besides  these  two  radically  diflferent  views,  there  are  several  interpreters  of  note  who  take 
an  intermediate  and  somewhat  complex  view.  Olshausen  says  Paul,  in  verses  14-24,  "  immedi- 
ately describes  the  state  of  man  before  regeneration,  since  his  purpose  is  to  set  forth  coherently 
the  whole  course  of  development;  in  the  consciousness,  however,  that  phenomena  entirely 
similar  present  themselves  within  the  regenerate  man,  he  makes  the  description  applicable  to 
the  regenerate  also.     The  opinion,  therefore,  on  the  one  side,  that  the  apostle  immediately  and 

»  The  last  two  did  not  lean  toward  Artuinian  views. 


324  APPENDIXES. 


directly  intends  the  regenerate,  and  on  the  other  the  assertion,  that  in  the  -regenerate  man  nothing 
answering  to  the  picture  in  verses  14-24  can  be  found,  are  alike  entirely  erroneous.  The  dis- 
tinction between  the  conflict  and  the  fall  of  the  unregenerate,  and  the  conflict  and  fall  of  the 
regenerate,  remains,  notwithstanding  the  subjective  feeling  of  their  near  affinity,  objectively  so 
great  (as  at  verses  24,  25  will  be  proved),  that  anxiety  lest  the  view  proposed  should  strip 
regeneration  of  its  essential  character  must  appear  evidently  unfounded." 

Alford's  theory  seems  still  more  artificial  and  complicated.  "From  verses  7-13  inclusive," 
he  says,  "is  historical,  and  the  I  (eyi))  there  is  the  historical  self  under  the  working  of  conviction 
of  sin  and  showing  the  work  of  the  law;  in  other  words,  the  carnal  self  in  the  transition  state, 
imder  the  first  motions  toward  God  generated  by  the  law,  which  the  law  could  never  have  per- 
fected. Then  at  ver.  14  Paul,  according  to  a  habit  very  common  with  him,  keeps  hold  of  the 
carnal  self,  and  still  having  it  in  view  transfers  himself  into  his  present  position,  altering  the  past 
tense  into  the  present,  still,  however,  meaning  by  I  (e'yw)  in  ver.  14, '  my  flesh.'  But  having  passed 
into  the  present  tense,  he  immediately  mingles  with  this  mere  action  of  the  law  upon  the  natu- 
ral conscience  the  motions  of  the  will  toward  God,  which  are  in  conflict  with  the  motions  toward 
sin  in  the  members.  And  hence  arises  an  apparent  verbal  confusion."  On  ver.  14,  "  Hitherto 
has  been  historical ;  now  the  apostle  passes  to  the  present  time,  keeping  hold  yet  of  the  carnal 
I  (iyii)  of  former  days,  whose  remnants  are  still  energizing  in  the  new  man."  Does  not  this  last 
clause  take  away  all  necessity  for  his  complex  theory? 

Peter  tells  us  that  there  are  some  things  in  the  epistles  of  Paul  which  are  hard  to  be 
understood.  (2  Peter  3  :  16.)  This  statement  is  certainly  applicable  to  the  seventh  chapter  of 
the  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  The  principal  difficulty  in  determining  whether  the  section  included 
between  verses  14  and  24  is  intended  to  describe  the  experience  of  a  man  before  his  conversion, 
or  afterward,  arises  from  the  fact  that  some  of  the  expressions  used  seem  to  rise  above  the  expe- 
rience of  any  unregenerate  person,  while  other  expressions  seem  to  fall  below  the  experience  of 
the  Christian.  The  principal  expressions  of  this  nature  on  both  sides  are  the  following :  ["  I 
hate"  evil  (ver.  15)]  ;  "  I  consent  unto  the  law  "  (ver.  16) ;  "to  will  is  present  with  me"  (ver. 
18) ;  "when  I  would  do  good"  (ver.  21) ;  ['I  delight  in  the  law  of  God"  (ver.  22)]  ;  "with  the 
mind  I  myself  serve  the  law  of  God  "  (ver.  25).  Can  these  expressions  be  referred  to  any  but  a 
regenerate  man?  Again:  "But  I  am  carnal,  sold  under  sin"  (ver,  14) ;  "what  I  hate,  that  do 
I"  (ver.  15);  "in  me  (that  is,  in  my  flesh)  dwelleth  no  good  thing"  (ver.  18);  "but  how  to 
perform  that  which  is  good  I  find  not "  (ver.  18) ;  "  the  evil  which  I  would  not^  that  I  do " 
(ver.  19) ;  "evil  is  present  with  me"  (ver.  21) ;  "  I  see  another  law  in  my  members  .  .  .  bring- 
ing me  into  captivity  to  the  law  of  sin"  (ver.  23) ;  "  but  with  the  flesh  the  law  of  sin  "  (ver.  25). 
Can  these  expressions  be  referred  to  one  who  is  justified  and  regenerate? 

These  are  the  difficulties  Ijetween  which  we  have  to  choose.  My  own  opinion  is  that  the 
language  in  these  verses  is  intended  to  show  how  powerless  the  law  is  to  enable  even  a  regenerate 
and  justified  person  to  overcome  sin.  I  suppose  the  conflict  here  described  is  just  what  would  be 
the  experience  of  every  Christian,  if  he  should  look  only  to  his  legal  relations,  what  is  in  fact  a 
common  experience  with  Christians,  in  just  so  far  as  they  do  regard  themselves  in  their  relation 
to  the  law,  apart  from  their  relation  to  Christ.  It  is  some  presumption  in  favor  of  this  view 
that  Christian  readers  have  very  generally  thought  that  they  found  one  aspect  of  their  own 
experience  described  here.  The  common  Christian  instinct,  if  we  may  be  allowed  the  expres- 
sion, speaks  in  favor  of  this  interpretation.  We  regard  this,  not  as  conclusive,  but  as  a  consider- 
ation of  no  little  weight. 

The  change  in  the  tenses  of  the  verb,  at  and  after  ver.  14,  so  uniformly  observed,  points  to  a 
transition  to  a  new  form  of  religious  experience,  bearing  such  a  relation  to  the  writer's  present 
feelings  as  the  former  verses  did  not.  Between  verses  7  and  13  inclusive,  there  are  thirteen 
instances  of  the  use  of  the  verb  and  participle  in  narration,  all  in  the  past  tense.     Between 


APPENDIXES.  325 


verses  14  and  25  inclusive  there  are  twenty-six  instances  of  the  use  of  the  finite  verb,  and  six  of 
the  participle,  all  in  the  present  tense.  This  change  of  tenses,  from  the  past  to  the  present,  so 
suddenly  made  and  so  uniformly  preserved,  is  of  great  significance,  and  requires  to  be  accounted 
for  in  our  interpretation  of  the  passage.  Those  who  deny  that  the  experience  of  the  regenerate 
is  described  in  these  last  verses  are  obliged  to  admit  that  the  forms  of  expression  used  by  the 
apostle  are  just  sucli  as  he  would  naturally  use  to  describe  his  present  experience  at  the  time  of 
writing.  But  Tholuck  says,  in  reply  to  this,  tiiat  "  what  is  said  from  ver.  14  onward,  with 
respect  to  the  contest  with  the  law,  is  just  what  was  already  said  in  the  previous  context;  nor, 
considering  the  lively  manner  of  describing  which  St.  Paul  has,  is  the  circumstance  that  thence- 
forward verbs  present  are  used  by  any  means  extraordinary."  (Vol.  II.,  p.  21,  Clark's  "Theo.," 
Library  Ed.)  Is  not  this  treating  too  lightly  so  important  a  change  in  the  language  of  the 
apostle?  Is  it  true  that  there  is  no  difference  in  the  two  parts  of  the  description?  In  the  first 
part  he  says:  "  Sin  wrought  in  me  all  manner  of  concupiscence  "  (ver.  8) ;  "  sin  slew  me"  (ver. 
11);  it  "  wrought  death  in  me"  (ver.  13).  Does  not  this  go  beyond  the  expressions,  "I  am 
carnal,  sold  under  sin"?  And  what  is  there  in  the  former  verses  in  any  degree  answering  to 
such  expressions  as  these :  "  I  consent  unto  the  law ;  I  delight  in  the  law  of  God  after  the  inward 
man";  "I  would  do  good";  "I  hate  the  evil  that  I  do";  "I  serve  the  law  of  God  with  the 
mind"?  Prof.  Kendrick  says,  in  a  note  to  Olshausen,  Vol.  IV.,  p.  19:  "I  think  the  ground  of 
the  apostle's  change  of  tense  lies  in  the  vividness  of  his  conception,  which  naturally  leads  him  to 
realize  and  depict  the  scene  as  if  now  actually  passing  within  him.  Besides,  the  point  at  which 
he  passes  from  the  past  to  the  present  is  where,  having  occasion  to  state  a  universal  truth,  '  the 
law  is  spiritual,'  and  hence  to  use  the  present  tense  he  naturally  employs  the  present  in  the 
answering  clause."  This  does  not  seem  to  me  a  satisfactory  account  of  so  marked  a  syntactical 
change. 

Again,  Stuart  objects,  that  "  the  person  represented  in  these  verses  succumbs  to  sin  in  every 
instance  of  contest."  ("E.xcursus"  VII.,  p.  467.)  "An  incessant  and  irreconcilable  opposition 
is  represented  (ver.  14)  as  existing  between  the  law  of  God  and  the  person  here  described.'' 
(Page  4G5.)  I  think  this  is  saying  too  much.  Would  the  apostle  say,  "  It  is  no  more  I  that  do 
it,  but  sin  that  dwelleth  in  me  "  ;  "I  delight  in  the  law  of  God  after  the  inner  man"  ;  would  he 
think  it  necessary  to  make  the  explanation,  "  I  know  that  in  me,  that  is  in  my  flesh,  dwelleth  no 
good  thing"  ;  could  he  say,  "With  my  mind  I  serve  the  law  of  God,"  if  he  intended  to  describe 
an  experience  in  which  the  victory  is  always  on  the  side  of  sin  ?  This  last  expression  cannot  he 
referred  to  a  later  stage  of  experience,  on  account  of  the  clause  which  immediately  follows — 
"  but  with  the  flesh  the  law  of  sin."  Is  not,  in  fact,  the  statement  in  ver.  25  the  key  to  the 
interpretation  of  the  passage?  The  law  which  the  mind  serves  is  what  determines  the  character  of 
the  man ;  and  so  I  think  the  apostle  here  affirms,  that  the  habitual  service  of  the  mind  was  ren- 
dered to  the  law  of  God,  while  at  the  same  time  the  remains  of  the  sinful  nature  habitually 
interfered  with  the  perfection  of  this  service,  and  frequently  drew  him  into  acts  that  belonged 
rather  to  the  service  of  sin.  It  seems  to  me  that  there  is  not  only  a  difference  between  the  two 
sections  as  a  whole,  but  a  perceptible  progress  of  experience  for  the  better  in  the  latter  sections. 
Thus  the  "I  consent  unto  the  law,"  of  ver.  16,  becomes  "I  delight  in  the  law,"  in  ver.  22.  And 
the  "  I,"  the  word  which  denotes  the  entire  personality,  is  more  decidedly  and  permanently  on 
the  side  of  good  in  the  latter  verses  than  in  the  former.  Compare,  for  instance,  the  "  I "  cf 
verses  21-23  with  that  of  verses  14r-16. 

If  now  we  are  compelled,  in  order  to  avoid  an  irreconcilable  contradiction,  to  understand 
some  of  the  stronger  terms  which  the  apostle  uses  in  a  modified  sense,  in  other  words,  to  admit 
that  there  is  something  of  allowable  hyperbole  in  his  language,  which  class  of  terras  shall  we  feel 
most  at  liberty  so  to  modify,  those  in  which  he  describes  the  action  of  the  higher  principle,  or 
those  in  which  he  describes  the  action  of  the  lower?    Which  would  he  be  most  likely  to  set 


326  APPENDIXES. 

forth  in  the  natural  exaggeration  of  strongly  excited  feeling,  the  workings  of  good  in  himself,  or 
the  workings  of  evil  ?  To  my  mind,  the  latter  seems  altogether  the  more  probable.  He  felt 
sin  to  be  a  grief,  a  burden,  and  a  thraldom  ;  and  its  influence  over  him  in  any  degree  seemed  to 
him  an  intolerable  usurpation.  It  would  then  be  natural  for  him  to  set  forth  with  something  of 
hyperbole  the  evil  that  remains  in  the  regenerate,  and  unnatural  for  him  to  exaggerate  in  like 
manner  the  better  motions  and  inclinations  that  are  sometimes  felt  by  the  unregenerate.  What- 
ever may  be  thought  of  the  state  of  mind  which  the  apostle  intended  to  describe  here,  there  can 
be  no  doubt  as  to  the  state  of  his  own  mind  when  he  wrote  the  description.  He  was  then  a  con- 
verted person,  all  his  sympathies  were  on  the  better  side,  and  he  regarded  sin  as  loathsome  and 
hateful. 

(b)  The  question  whether  or  not  Paul  is  here  describing  his  own  personal  experience  is  less 
essential  than  the  former  to  a  right  understanding  of  his  language.  Still  it  is  worthy  of  some 
consideration. 

Most  of  those  who  deny  the  reference  to  the  regenerate  in  ver.  14-25,  also  deny  that  Paul 
means  to  describe  his  own  experience  in  either  the  former  (ver.  7-13),  or  the  latter  portion 
(ver.  14-25). 

The  apostle's  abundant  use  of  the  first  person  in  this  section  is  certainly  a  very  strong  argu- 
ment for  believing  that  he  wishes  to  be  understood  as  describing  his  own  case.  He  does  indeed 
speak,  in  1  Cor.  4 ;  6,  of  transferring  to  himself  and  Apollos  in  a  figure,  or  by  way  of  illustra- 
tion, what  was  of  more  general  application ;  and  various  other  instances  of  this  are  cited  by 
Tlioluck,  in  support  of  the  view  that  he  does  the  same  here.  But  these  instances  have  little  in 
common  with  the  passage  under  consideration.  They  consist  only  of  brief  expressions,  in  which 
he  puts  himself  for  the  moment  in  the  place  of  another.  (ICor.  6:  12;  10:  29,30;  13:  11, 
12 ;  Gal.  2:  18.)  To  do  this  is  quite  common  with  most  writers.  But  it  is  a  very  diflferent  thing 
to  carry  on  such  a  representation  through  the  greater  part  of  a  chapter.  In  truth  the  frequency 
and  emphasis  with  which  he  uses  the  first  person  is  quite  remarkable.  From  verse  7  to  25, 
inclusive,  he  uses  the  verb  in  the  first  person  singular  no  less  than  twenty-seven  times,  the 
oblique  cases  of  the  pronoun  of  the  first  person  seventeen  times,  ar.d  the  nominative  case  "  ego  " 
eight  times,  seven  times  with  the  verb  and  once  with  the  pronoun  (auros)  added.  In  these  last 
cases  the  use  is  of  course  emphatic.  Thus  the  pronoun  of  the  first  person  is  used  twenty-four 
times  in  these  nineteen  verses,  six  or  seven  times  with  marked  emphasis.  I  doubt  whether 
another  passage  of  equal  extent  can  be  found  in  the  New  Testament,  where  the  personal  pronoun 
of  the  first  person  singular  is  used  so  abundantly.  There  is  throughout  an  appearance  of  reality, 
and  not  of  allegory. 

It  is  obvious  to  remark,  that  the  view  here  taken  goes  to  confirm  our  previous  view  of  the 
application  of  ver.  14—25  to  the  regenerate.  This  confirmation  is  very  strong,  when  viewed  in 
connection  with  the  change  of  tenses  from  ver.  14,  onward. 

But  if  we  have  reason  to  regard  this  whole  passage  as  descriptive  of  the  apostle's  own  experi- 
ence, the  question  arises,  at  what  period  of  his  life  was  this  experience  realized  ?  So  far  as  it  is 
the  experience  of  an  unregenerate  person — that  is,  so  far  as  it  is  recorded  in  ver.  7-13 — we  may 
suppose  that  its  culminating  epoch  was  during  those  three  days  of  blindness  and  fasting,  which 
followed  the  first  appearance  of  the  Lord  to  him,  and  preceded  his  baptism.  It  is  very  com- 
monly assumed,  that  his  radical  conversion  took  place  at  the  moment  of  that  appearance ;  but 
the  only  evidence  of  this  is  the  question  which  he  asked,  apparently  expressive  of  a  spirit  of 
obedience,  "  What  shall  I  do,  Lord  ?  "  (Acts  22:  10.)  (The  words  in  9 :  6  are  interpolated.)  On 
the  other  hand,  he  seems  to  have  remained  at  least  three  days  without  comfort,  and  so  far  as  the 
record  states  without  prayer.  (Acts  9  :  11.)  [Dr.  Arnold,  it  will  be  perceived,  does  not  abso- 
lutely deny  the  fact  of  Paul's  praying  during  this  time,  and  we  see  not  how  he  could  possibly 
keep  from  prayer.     And  if  he  was  not  then  filled  with  the  Spirit,  certainly  the  Spirit  was 


APPENDIXES.  327 

operating  in  his  mind  and  heart,  giving  him  inward  light,  and  instructing  him  in  the  great 
truths  of  that  theology  which  he  afterward  preached.  That  he  was  at  this  time  a  praying  man 
seems  evident  from  our  Lord's  tirst  words  to  Ananias  concerning  him  before  his  outward  eyes 
were  opened  :  "Behold,  he  prayeth,"  and  from  the  fact  that  Ananias  on  visiting  him  immedi- 
ately addressed  him  as  a  Christian  "  brother."]  It  was  not  until  the  visit  of  Ananias  tliat  he 
recovered  his  sight,  that  he  was  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost  (ver.  17),  that  he  was  ready  to  be 
baptized.  (Ver.  18.)  He  does  not  seem  to  have  had  any  spiritual  relief  until  then.  Without 
supposing,  then,  that  he  had  never  experienced  before  any  part  of  that  which  he  describes  so 
grapiiically  in  ver.  7-9,  we  can  hardly  find  any  other  time  in  his  life  to  which  that  strongly 
marked  conflict  can  be  so  reasonably  assigned.  Certainly  it  was  not  until  then  that  he  could 
sav  "  I  died."  As  to  the  second  part  of  this  experience,  which  we  suppose  to  be  described  in 
verses  14-24,  that  may  have  continued  through  the  whole  of  his  Christian  life,  in  proportion 
as  he  compared  himself  with  the  standard  of  legal  requirement ;  but  would  be  less  and  less  real 
to  him,  as  indeed  it  seems  to  be  here  represented,  in  proportion  as  his  spirit  was  imbued  more  and 
more  with  the  doctrine  of  grace.  Those  whom  we  must  allow  to  be  Christians  do  find,  or  think 
they  find,  much  in  their  own  experience  which  answers  to  what  the  apostle  here  says.  They 
would  find  nothing  of  this  kind,  if  they  were  perfect  in  faith,  and  love,  and  holiness.  They 
would  find  nothing  else  but  this,  if  they  looked  only  toward  the  law  and  its  requirements.  In 
fact,  their  actual  experience  is  made  up  of  the  alternation  and  mixture  of  the  distressing  sense 
of  remaining  and  often  prevailing  sin,  and  the  happy  assurance  of  free  pardon,  full  justification, 
and  ultimate  perfect  sanctification  in  Christ. 

We  are  not  to  suppose  that  the  apostle's  experience  was  of  a  wholly  different  type  in  this 
respect  from  that  of  truly  regenerate  persons  in  the  present  day  and  in  every  age.  The 
different  states  of  religious  experience  described  in  ch.  7:  14r-25  and  ch.  8  :  1-4,  are  not  to  be 
re;?arded  as  altogether  different  historical  stages  in  the  apostle's  religious  life,  so  that  ch.  7  :  14- 
25  describes  his  whole  experience  at  one  time,  and  ch.  8 :  1-4,  his  whole  experience  at  another 
and  later  period  of  his  Christian  course  ;  but  the  tv^o  descriptions  are  rather  to  be  regarded  as 
representing  his  experience  in  different  attitudes  of  mind,  which  partly  alternated  with  each 
other,  and  were  partly  commingled  throughout  his  Christian  life. 

I  cannot  forbear  to  refer,  as  in  the  main  agreeing  with  and  confirming  the  interpretation  of 
this  difficult  passage  here  given,  to  a  very  able  and  exhaustive  article,  by  Kev.  W.  N.  Clarke,  in 
the  "Baptist  Quarterly,"  for  October,  1875,  pp.  385-411. 

APPENDIX   E,  TO    ROMANS  8:  19-23,   PAGE   197. 

The  meaning  of  the  word  translated  'creature,'  or  'creation'  (ktiVis).  This  word  occurs  in 
the  New  Testament  nineteen  times :  Mark  10:6;  13:19;  16:15;  Rom.  1 :  20,  25  ;  8:19,  20,  21, 
22,39;  2  Cor.  5:  17;  Gal.  6 :  15;  Col.  1 :  15,  23;  Heb.4:  13;  9:  11;  1  Peter  2 :  13;  2  Peter  3: 
4;  Rev.  3:  14. 

Ik  our  common  English  version  it  is  translated  "  creature "  eleven  times,  "  creation  "  six 
times  (Mark  6  :  10  ;  13:9;  Rom.  1  :  20  ;  8  :  22  ;  2  Peter  3:4;  Rev.  3  :  14),  and  once  it  is  trans- 
lated "building"  (Heb.  9  :  11),  and  once  "ordinance"  (1  Peter  2:  13).  Four  of  these  passages 
belong  to  the  place  under  consideration,  leaving  fifteen  others  from  which  to  determine  its  pre- 
vailing sense.  It  is  used  to  express  the  act  of  creating  only  in  Rom.  1 :  20.  Elsewhere  it 
always  stands  for  that  which  is  created,  either  for  the  creation  as  a  whole,  or  for  some  particular 
created  thing,  or  for  some  class  or  classes  of  created  things.  Twice  it  is  used  with  the  adjective 
"  new,"  to  designate  the  '  new  creation,'  or  the  '  new  creature.'  (2  Cor.  5  :  17  ;  Gal.  6  :  15.)  In 
1  Peter  2:  13,  with  the  epithet  'human'  it  has  the  sense  of  human  'ordinance'  or  'institution' ; 
and  in  Mark  16 :  15  it  can  only  refer  to  mankind.     In  the  remaining  ten  instances  it  has  the 


328  APPENDIXES. 


general  sense  of  '  creation,'  or  that  which  is  created,  not  necessarily  including  more  tlian  this 
world  in  tlie  majority  of  cases.  In  Col.  1 :  23  it  is  referred  by  Robinson  and  Tholuck  to  man- 
kind; but  the  Greek  preposition  "in"  (ec),  and  the  explanatory  adjunct  "which  is  under  hea- 
ven," seem  rather  to  require  that  it  be  understood  here  in  a  local  sease.  "  In  all  creation  which 
is  under  heaven  "  is  Alford's  translation. 

The  sense  is  disputed  in  Col.  1:  15  and  Rev.  3:  14,  some  understanding  it  in  these  two 
places  to  refer  to  the  '  new  creation ' ;  but  if  we  take  the  word  "  firstborn  "  in  tlie  first  of  these 
passages  in  the  sense  of  'heir'  or  'inheritor'  (a  sense  justified  by  the  use  of  the  word  in  Deut. 
21 :  16),  and  understand  the  word  "beginning"  in  the  second  passage  in  the  sense  of  'first  prin- 
ciple,' or  'primal  source,'  all  doctrinal  difficulty  will  be  avoided,  and  the  word  (xTtVi?)  will  have 
its  usual  sense  in  both  these  places. 

Tlie  usual  meaning  of  this  word,  then,  in  the  New  Testament  clearly  is  the  creation,  not 
necessarily  extending  beyond  this  world,  and  not  excluding  mankind.  It  is  not  applied  to 
human  creatures  exclusively,  except  in  Mark  16:  15;  nor  does  it  appear  that  it  is  ever  applied 
to  Christians  exclusively,  without  the  addition  of  the  epithet  "new." 

On  the  whole,  then,  the  demands  of  the  context  in  relation  to  this  word  seem  to  be  best 
answered  by  defining  it  as  including  the  inanimate  and  irrational  creation,  so  far  as  relates  to 
this  world.  This  sense  corresponds  with  the  ordinary  use  of  the  word,  except  in  Excluding 
mankind — for  which  exclusion  the  passage  itself  furnishes  the  reason.  But  can  the  inanimate 
and  irrational  creation  be  said  to  groan  and  travail  in  pain,  and  to  hope  for  deliverance  in  con- 
nection with  the  manifestation  of  the  sons  of  God  ?  Certainly  not,  if  we  insist  on  taking  these 
expressions  in  a  strictly  literal  sense.  But  if  we  compare  this  language  with  the  representations 
of  the  Old  Testament  prophets,  and  of  the  Apocalypse,  in  regard  to  the  renovation  of  the  earth 
in  connection  with  the  consummation  of  the  Messiah's  kingdom,  we  shall  find  nothing  but  what 
is  in  keeping  with  those  Scriptural  representations.  The  earth  was  cursed  on  account  of  Adam's 
sin  (Gen.  3 :  17,  18) ;  it  is  to  be  delivered  from  the  curse  in  connection  with  man's  deliverance 
from  sin.  So  much  of  it  as  is  capable  of  feeling  actually  suflTers  under  the  bondage  of  corrup- 
tion (the  liability  to  pain  and  death),  and  under  the  abuse  and  wrongs  inflicted  by  wicked  and 
cruel  men.  Since  these  evils  are  real  and  heavy,  since  they  are  undeserved,  since  they  are  of 
long  continuance,  and  since  God  has  promised  deliverance  from  them,  the  brute  creation  may 
fitly  be  represented  as  groaning  under  these  evils,  and  longing  for  the  promised  deliverance. 
And  since  inanimate  nature  is  also  under  the  curse  on  account  of  sin ;  since  it  also  suffers  abuse, 
perversion,  and  distortion  in  various  ways  from  man's  folly,  improvidence,  and  wickedness ;  and 
since  it  is  also  to  be  delivered  from  these  evils — it,  too,  may  well  be  represented  as  sharing  in 
the  groaning  and  the  travail,  in  the  longing  and  the  hope. 

As  to  the  certainty  of  this  future  deliverance,  all  our  knowledge  must  be  derived  from  divine 
revelation.  The  skeptical  scientist  may  scoff  at  the  idea  of  such  a  change  in  the  natural  world 
on  moral  grounds ;  but  he  will  never  be  able  to  prove  that  the  material  and  brute  creation  did 
not  lose  much  by  man's  fall  into  sin,  and  will  not  gain  much  by  man's  recovery  to  holiness.  The 
renovation  of  the  physical  world  at  the  advent  of  the  Messiah  was  a  dogma  of  the  Rabbins,  as 
may  be  seen  from  the  passages  cited  by  Tholuck  and  other  commentators.  They  found  the  germ 
of  their  doctrine  on  this  subject  in  such  passages  as  Isa.  9:  6-9;  65:  17-25;  Ezek.  34:  25-27  ; 
Hosea  2  :  18-23.  We  have  corresponding  intimations  in  the  New  Testament,  for  the  most  part 
brief  and  suggestive  merely,  as  Matt.  19 ;  28 ;  Acts  3 :  21 ;  2  Peter  3:13;  but  sometimes  more 
explicit  and  circumstantial,  though  in  highly  figurative  language,  as  in  Rev.  21. 


M'  '  ,'(:"  ■ :  > 


-it  '  > 


>     .'^ 


jSr-       -*? 


DATE  DUE 

--.^ ^ 

'^«4J.^ 

\ 

— *** 

#- 

GAYLORD 

PRINTED  IN  U    S    A 

> 


^ 


^       .  <^         -jjf        v^f^  -     ,:ir» 


A-  >  A' 


V  >- 


J«r'  !h»- 


^        >*         <H        .^         V        ^        >- 


>>      ;>r       >-      >- 


X        itr 


V       >'• 


A;      ,^       >r       >       >■ 


BS2341.A512V.4 

Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  00056  0328 


